This is a reminder that intelligent people lean liberal / democrat

This is a reminder that intelligent people lean liberal / democrat.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPJWwiKnYGs
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

K
I idet tehn

Do you like IQ test results OP? We have those here on Sup Forums.

I don't think you'll like what they imply...

There's a stronger correlation between Scientists and Independents when you compare the totals to the same figures for the entire population.

>1 scientist
>= 1 intelligent person

Today OP was intelligent

Not necessarily, but you probably are.

the same scientists funded by dems to say shit dems want they to say vote dems?
say it ain't so!

If you have a PhD (from an accredited institution) in the hard sciences then you are almost certainly intelligent. In fact, this group of people (along with mathematicians) are the most intelligent group of people on the planet.

They do not just say they are democrats. They have liberal beliefs. This is not recent. You can go back to the Ancient Greeks. Intellectuals are always overwhelmingly liberal.

LEL people whose livelihoods that literally depend on the government voting Liberal, colour me shocked senpai.

see:

Lol teht nud veri nis

>hyper focus
>intelligence

tip top fedora

Republicans don't deserve to live.

ITT: A bunch of NEET neckbeards without education and living at home thinking they're more intelligent than the majority of the scientific community.

This is a reminder that intelligent people are wrong about politics.

More like abstract, logical, and critical thinking.

"lean"
OK. How interesting is this? I don't think it is very interesting.

Even if that's true, who's fault is it? That just means obamas government failed to give a proper education to everyone who needed it then. They had 8 years to do something about it and yet they didnt. They can only blame themselves.

Someones posting on a grande Somali cockuccino high.

ITT swedes telling anyone about anything related to how others should act

m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPJWwiKnYGs

...

That's why so many blacks are liberal right?

K bitted aganst

it's proof that most people going through college completely drink the kool aid to get their degrees. thanks to licensing, you can't do anything in this world without a degree... so the Dems beat us until Trump kills the student loan flow

Many scientists are obsessed with their own intelligence and consumed with the ideal of looking smart to other people. This is why they irrationally put exorbitant weight on bullshit like evolution in schools and non-issues like Climate Change. They are obsessed with whether or not someone believes in Climate Change while ignoring the real question of why that matters in any practical sense.

Finally, and sadly, many high IQ men are numales or cucks. They also disproportionately adopt sneaky fucker strategies with women.

But don't colleges brain wash people into going left?

> almost
> certainly
Pick one faggot
OP IS A FAGGOT

I cannot understand a word. Want to summarize?

Did they let you out of the cuckshed again Sven?

Actually the one thing you'll notice that liberals seem to have in common across class, race, and religion, is they all seem to be benefiting from government power. One way or another they are all hooked into the government apparatus

If both smart people and dumb niggas voted for hilldawg, who actually voted for Trump? Lets say that the wall street bankers with their finance degree also voted for hilldawg. Who is left? The hardworking degree-less normal americans?
How can these statistics even be trusted?

Are gender studies '''scientists''' included in this poll by any chance?

A lot of scientists really don't know shit besides science.
t. grad student in scientific field

Being intelligent in science science does not mean you are intelligent in politics.

The problem with scientists is they view politics in an autistic, mathematical way whereas emotion plays a large part in politics

If you were intelligent you would understand the concept of affirming the consequent and wouldn't have made this post.

"Smart people" under these definitions are typically less than 2% of the American populace. They are actually irrelevant.

> People whose salaries are paid by Big Government like Big Government.

>people that get paid by the government argue for a bigger government

Color me fucking surprised.

I know a handful of scientists, several of whom graduated from the University of Cambridge, and all of them are left-leaning, to varying degrees. In addition, despite their obvious mental capabilities in certain areas, they are all ignorant, intellectually lazy, and pronouncedly compliant when it comes to politics. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that there is a clear correlation between a propensity for scientific attainment and a tendency to go 'with the grain' on political matters. It might be anecdotal, but the biggest SJW suck-up I know has a PhD in physics from MIT!

What are the relationship of these skills to political power? Has there ever been a civilization truly ruled by such people?

Because intellectuals like the idea of a society where their type are venerated and they can dictate the course of the government, it also helps that liberals in the government are the ones who primarily fund their mostly worthless research so of course they support the party that gives them money.

All the more reason to not give a fuck about what they think. You retards seem to think that a piece of paper from a jew school suddenly makes you more qualified to dictate the course of society and this is why you lost, because people are tired of that bullshit. You can't pretend you know whats best when you clearly don't, now fuck off

And what does the scientific community know about politics? Please tell me how being able to do a titration educates you on politics.

Fact is unless someone goes into politic studies they know no more about politics than a high school dropout of the same age.

Outside of actualy studying politics the only other way to become more intelligent in the area is through experience. So I find it funny when the older people are the deciders in things like trump and brexit.

Yea no

t. Biochemistry Ph.D.

I'd say scientists are educated enough to not fall for the right vs left ruse.

These STEM PhDs, not English or sociology. Feel free to try again.

My physics professor, who I did research for and grew very close to, confided in me that he wanted to see 99% of the human population exterminated.

When I asked why, he said population growth was unsustainable. When I told him that literally the only place on Earth with unsustainable population growth was Africa, he was bewildered, he actually had never heard that before.

They are smart people, but you really don't want them leading your country

HAHAHAHAHA you always shit on us for being dummies just because you went to Cathedral approved indoctrination camps.

You're not laughing now, are you? Enjoy four years of Trump you tremendous cock sucking faggot. Taste despair and kill yourself.

Since when does independent mean liberal? I'm in the science part of independent because I think the vast part of the liberal group is retarded and the republicans focus on religion too much. If the survey/poll (and how those are so accurate, haha) asked about other groups you'd see a larger spread.

Lets also not forget you're probably polling people in an academic setting which, btw, mean if you say you're anything less than a racial liberal, you lose your funding and job.

So I guess this post was a reminder to yourself that you're a tool and probably an idiot. In which case a post it note on your desk works better.

What this tells me is that a lot of scientists (How many thrive off Massa government) do not know much about the human condition, applied economics, and history. Admiring political theories is a nice past time; putting destructive political theories into practice is suicide.

>falling for le ebin liberal are intelligent meme

Watch BlackPigeon's video on this.

Total sample: 2,533

Obama couldn't do shit because he had to deal with a republican congress for most of his presidency.

Republicans are particularly opposed to education because they know that a country that values education and reason is a country that votes Democrat.

The irony of course is that all this uneducation eventually led to the Republican party being completely taken over by the dumbest, most retarded bottom of the barrel low-IQ subhuman waste of America and now anyone within the Republican party who even has a high school diploma will be pushed aside for being too "cucked"

It's fun to watch but I'm not sure it's reversible, it's basically becoming a Middle Eastern religious shithole forever.

More importantly, do the interests, economic and otherwise, of scientists correspond to the interests of the people? Are things that are good for this 1% good for everyone else? If no, which it certainly is no, why should we trust their biased incentives?

IQ tests are a pretty shitty metric championed by pseudo-intellectuals that have never achieved anything and 13-year-olds that think they can fix the world with their dumb ideas. Everyone on the Internet is a Mensa certified genius. It's as worthless as a Bachelors.

This. A lot of scientists are self-serving and focused on their work. It isn't so much about who is the best candidate, but rather who will end up giving you better grants so that you can carry out your research and get published. You go with the flow and make irrelevant commentary here and there, but that's about it. If you end up in applied/practical sciences, like medicine, then you tend to stay neutral because getting engaged leads to biases that can affect your ability to practice.

No, it's a reminder that democrats waste more money on """"""science"""""".

I was a "democrat" too when I used government funds to go do research.... even though I was a registered Republican.

Some of those answers from the scientists tell me that they're not liberal purely because they're smart.

>Political Science

is a joke, and there's a good reason why most of the people who have those degrees are either employed at Starbucks or become Lawyers. Politics can't be narrowed down to a science because there's too much emotion and chaos involved. These are people who "assume" to know what people want in a leader or in a law and they're usually wrong, unless they go to law school and write the law themselves.

Education =/= Smarts

Finally, and I know I am breaking the rules of this board, it is important to Make America Great Again. I truly believe that MAGA COCKS with high IQs are the true leaders of our nation.

jesus i wonder how

>population growth was unsustainable
I really don't like this meme. They've been saying it for 200 years by now and it hasn't happened. Humans innovate and we can solve things like that through technology. Anyway the birthrates in developed countries are leveling off.

Mao Tsetung said this in 1964:

>When you discover a law, you must be able to apply it, you must create the world anew, you must break the ground and edify buildings, you must dig mines, industrialize. In the future there will be more people, and there won’t be enough grain, so men will have to get food from minerals. Thus it is that only by transformation can freedom be obtained. Will it be possible in the future to be all that free? Lenin said that in the future, aeroplanes would be as numerous in the skies as flies, rushing hither and thither. Everywhere they will collide, and what will we do about it? How will we manoeuvre them? And if we do, will things be all that free? In Peking at present there are 10,000 buses; in Tokyo there are 100,000 [vehicles] (or is it 800,000?), so there are more automobile accidents. We have fewer cars, and we also educate the drivers and the people, so there are few accidents. What will they do in Peking 10,000 years hence? Will there still be 10,000 buses? They may invent something new, so that they can dispense with these means of transport, so that men can fly, using some simple mechanical device, and fly right to any place, and land wherever they like. It won’t do just to understand necess! ity, we must also transform things.

Sage

Don't respond to these troll threads

Sage

Sage

If thems demoshits so smart how come theys couldnt even git the 'ole bitch into power eh.

One thing that's true about science types is they usually have fairly bad social skills and grow up isolated.

I've observed just from living around them that they're very susceptible to social reasoning. They really really don't want to be in the out-group. The most liberal ones have the least testosterone.

Engineers are more conservative leaning.

First off, to be given a PhD, you have to be both smart, AND privileged. Undergrad, Masters and Doctoral aren't cheap.

So only few of these people are Ben Carson-style zero-to-hero genius. They were well-to-do kids from friendly gated communities. They attended prestigious schools and are granted scholarships from Ivy League universities. Their live their entire lives surrounded by the cream of the crop.

You expect them to understand that socialistic concepts do not fucking work because the rest of the world is not as orderly, disciplined or intelligent as they are?

You expect them to understand that people are inherently different? That some groups of people have a statistical tendency to exhibit certain behaviors than other groups, especially considering they've only met the best of each group?

You're looking at a group of people already living in a small utopia.

and yet the principles of evolution favour a conservative lifestyle.

Having a little knowledge in everything is far more dangerous than having no knowledge at all.

Thinking you know everything when you don't causes far more damage

So why do *liberal / democrat* are ignorant, obscurant, illiterate and agressive?

>being intelligent in science does not mean you are intelligent in politics

Precisely what I came here to say. The idea of scientists being an authority on normative political behavior is one of the worst false equivalencies that I see get thrown around all the time. A good politician should weigh their data, research, and conclusions, but it's a foolish notion to think that scientists should be directing agendas.

I've worked for the government. It's wasteful as can be. Most people there don't give a fuck about the job and wouldn't make it in the real market.
People just jerk off all day and incompetence isn't punished.
It's a fucking shame that unless you're caught doing something illegal you practically can't get fired even then it's still pretty difficult.

>IQ tests are a pretty shitty metric championed by pseudo-intellectuals
This is empirically false. There are smart people who don't score well on IQ tests, but they are incredibly rare. Psychologists chose 140 as the cutoff for genius because empirically most geniuses have IQs over 140.

Evolution is the most important fact in the study of life and the biological sciences are dependent on it. Not teaching it in a biology class would be the equivalent of not teaching grammar in a language class.

The vast majority of scientists don't consider climate change a "non-issue." In fact, it is one of the most important issues for scientists. If people don't believe the problem can't be solved.

You might be retarded.

>PhD
>Smart

Lol

Most people that are extremely book smart usually lack pretty hard in the social skills department.

nice source

Being able to hyper focus on a specific topic doesn't make you smart.

Yeah, the current one.

>Psychologists chose 140 as the cutoff for genius because empirically most geniuses have IQs over 140.

That's circular lol.

The reason it hasn't happened is because governments have implemented policies to suppress rising population. Unfortunately, governments in Africa have not, as you can see by pic related.

It's the liberal culture by-and-large, it's utterly toxic to family formation and reproduction.
Also, it's well known that when girls go to school, their birth rate is much lower. They have kids much later in life, and usually only have a few, if they get sucked into a career they may only have one or even zero.

Unfortunatley, this means the best and brightest also have the lowest birth rates. In the long term, it's a recipe for disaster.
Also, when women are having children out of their prime years, they produce lower quality children. More birth defects, more mental issues, more autism....etc. For the health of their children, women really should be having kids in their early to mid 20's instead of partying, sleeping around and destroying themselves for marriage.

The way our society is being run is deeply illogical, founded more on feelings than scientific facts

Your shitty IQ test doesn't matter in the real world. Nobody is going to hire you or your SJW cuck friends because of your Mensa certificate or random Internet test. It will not get you hired. Hold on to your Mensa slip, because nobody is going to give a shit outside of Internet circlejerks.

...

> STUDENT GOES TO COLLEGE, LISTENS TO LIBERALS 24/7
> SMART PEOPLE ARE LIBERALS

The faculty has been invaded by progressive scum for the last 50 years, of course these kids who deliberately open their minds to new ideas, are going to be influenced by indoctrination.

I think it will level off in Africa once they develop more technologically. See, even in your graph it is dropping in Africa.

In nature nothing really follows pure exponential curves, most things level off and follow S-curve type patterns.

Still the government could probably encourage more breeding. Maybe if society and culture and technology change enough we will see an increase in the population. But it's not clear what will happen.

I think if it grows or shrinks mankind can adapt with technology and it doesn't really spell the end of the world either way.

Are you discrediting the voice of the average working man? The backbone of any country?

You know, maybe this is just an indictment on the piss poor state of education in this country, but this is pretty fucking far away from being a rule. No joke, some of the dumbest people I've ever met are people with PhDs. A lot of them have to focus on the smallest, most inconsequential shit that they're completely incapable of stepping back and seeing things on a macro level.

The only thing I'll say for certain is that there's a tremendous amount of time, focus, and energy that goes into obtaining one. I think they all have a pretty solid work ethic, but really anybody with the initiative (and capital) to apply themselves can get one.

In politics you are either making claims or supporting claims. That is all scientists do, with a level of rigor not found anywhere else.

>employment sector

>Evolution is the most important fact in the study of life and the biological sciences are dependent on it.
No, but it is vital for many our models.
>Not teaching it in a biology class would be the equivalent of not teaching grammar in a language class.
Exactly. It is actually unnecessary for most students.
>The vast majority of scientists don't consider climate change a "non-issue." In fact, it is one of the most important issues for scientists
Yes, because they are irrational. Specifically, they are economically irrational. There is a reason that no liberals tout Climate Change legislation as economically necessary anymore. The Stern Report was the last time they did and it used an absurd discount rate that averaged barely over 1% (basically fighting Climate Change made as much economic sense as investing all your money in a savings account). Today, ten years later, the models used in the Stern Report were very pessimistic. If it were redone, you could have the discount rate at fucking 0% and fighting Climate Change through carbon emissions reductions would laughable. That is, it is laughable.
>If people don't believe the problem can't be solved.
Yes. You are not looking at the actual problem though.
>You might be retarded.
No, but a good portion of blacks are literally retarded, but you somehow don't mind the Democratic party using them as basically cattle when election time comes around.

>Yeah, the current one.
No, they are pawns of the global elite.

knowledge =/= intelligence

source: image your posted

dumb peons dont know whats good for them

No man, I'm sorry, but engineers and small businessmen are the smartest groups. Specialized scientists were dumb enough to go into a field where they have to constantly put up with government inefficiency and the only way they get paid is if the government still thinks their worth something, so of course they'll support the reckless spending and governmental programs like an obedient pet liberal.

Scientists mostly just focus really narrowly on a specific topic or field and try to get papers published about it. They probably have good critical thinking and reasoning skills but they aren't like enlightened renaissance men or anything, usually. And they are usually highly divorced from politics.

Actually there is a lot of dogmatism in science. Just look at the state of quantum physics and their circlejerking there about 'muh spooky action' and unwillingness to challenge the dogma.

Although scientists are thought of as enlightened highly intelligent people they are sort of like a religion in a sense and are ignorant and sometimes dogmatic and stuck in their own small world a lot of the time.

Scientists are just autistic, truly smart people are low profile millionaires and billionaires.

>Africa
>develop more technologically
Do you even know what you just said?

The average IQ in Africa is 67. The average black African has a brain 10% smaller than the average European, with fewer folds and fewer connections to the frontal lobe. During the time of the first colonization, there was not a single written language in all of Sub-Saharan Africa, nor a number system that counted higher than 10.

How are these people going to develop technologically? The murder rate in the average poverty-stricken African city is 50 times the average poverty-stricken Asian city. How do you build a modern society with such people?

The reason the African population is exploding is because we are feeding it. The UN ships millions of tons of grain to Africa every year. As well as clothes, toys, immunizations....etc. The average woman in Africa has over 5 children with the total expectation that she will survive of UN aid.

The population is already well above the carrying capacity of the continent, and headed even higher. Meanwhile, Western birthrates are being suppressed as we shovel our resources towards them. The average white European has 1.3 children. By the end of the century, the African population will rise from 1.1 billion to 4.5 billion. The white population will fall from 900 million to 400 million.

This is a recipe for absolute catastrophe

>chopped up dick

It started as trying to get people to think outside the usual conservative culture box that most were in.
However this message was lost on so many. Now professors continue this tradition without know why their professor did it. Now it's a liberal circle jerk. The only remedy is to get people that understand this into professor positions.

It's almost as if all the mandatory social """"""""science""""""""" credits that are required for every degree are having some kind of effect on people who get educations.

Who would've thought?