Pangloss

Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the "loser," and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round. I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theatre of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world. Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment. When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to: M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc. Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A. along with a 3x5 card reading, "Please use this M&M for breeding purposes." This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this "grant money." I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion. There can be only one.

Dak, what I object to is the ongoing, systemic, socially-accepted view on this web site of conservatives as backward, unintelligent boobs. That point of view has been put forth and supported in this thread, and it is every bit as ignorant and moronic (not to mention immature and sophmoric) as it would be for a conservative to bash liberals in the same way. But for some reason it's accepted here when it's done to conservatives. Accepted and supported as if it were some sort of universal, undeniable truth. So what does that make Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? An ignorant boob? A stupid non-thinker? Incapable of rational thought? Unable to string two sentences together? A complete half-wit? ORLY? That guy came out of absolute poverty and went on to graduate at the top of his class and get a JD from YALE. Could he be merely mislead? Perhaps he's simply not considered all the issues fully? The sheer audacity of such comments are utterly astounding coming from a group of people that prides itself on intelligence and scientific objectivity. ASTOUNDING. Not to mention irresponsible, immature, and just plain knuckle-headed. I am disappointed beyond words.

No, I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it was dissmissive, pejorative, and irrelevent.

Whew, I knew Sisyphus would come to my aid. To answer yourdadonapogos' question, one example of conservatism in science is peer review, as mentioned above. We don't just fly off the reservation every time we hear something that sounds like a great idea. Look at how many drugs have had to be recalled after further studies were done. Look at how many times we've gotten excited about breakthroughs of all kinds, only to find out later that somebody made a mistake. Conservatism is IMPORTANT. And I like how he balanced liberalism into the equation -- that's very true in my opinion. This is what I think has made our society great -- not our ideologies, but our abilities to find common ground BETWEEN them, and still find a way to move forward even though it often feels like dire and dangerous compromise. We're GOOD at it. And recognizing what we're good at is an important part of moving society forward. ------- By the way, I don't talk very often about those things which SFN has changed my mind about over the years, but it seems like a good time to mention one of them. Between SFN and my own return to academia (finishing my bachelors, completing a masters, and now working on a PhD), I have rediscovered something I had forgotten about liberalism and the moderate left, which is that it has an element of common sense that the right wing likes to pretend is in their own domain. Don't get me wrong: I actually think Rush Limbaugh and CTR (conservative talk radio) has done a great service to this country in re-awakening common sense and critical thinking (yes, critical thinking) amongst the masses -- far more than academia and the left-wing elite have done in recent years! I know I'm practically alone in this crowd in thinking this, but my opinion on it is unswayed. That having been said, there's a HUGE difference between the kind of left-wing ideologues that show up for anti-war protest rallys and the kind of moderate lefties and liberals that typically congregate in the halls of academia and the research labs of this country. To be more specific, I feel that this board represents that important part of our culture which is so often ignored by the popular culture: Intelligent, thoughtful, introspective, critically-thinking people who support societies community efforts while embracing the culture of individualism. There are a few nut cases who invariably get mixed in with this crowd, and we've seen that right here on SFN (just drop by the Pseudoscience board and see). But they don't represent the majority of this culture, and Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh can't change my mind about that anymore than this crowd can change my mind about that CTR contribution. I think that's terrific, and frankly it's what's kept me hanging around here over the years. I don't get that point of view *anywhere* else.

The adjective in the broadest sense of the word, which is being attacked as a negative value across the board in this thread.

That's not what I'm suggesting and you know it. This thread has become about conservative-bashing against all reason and logic. And it's disturbing to see that kind of childishness in this forum. And it's hypocritical, because it wouldn't be allowed to stand if the same kinds of things were said about liberalism. I find it astonishing that people can't think of a single positive aspect of being conservative. This in spite of the fact that conservatism is INHERENTLY NECESSARY in the pursuit of scientific endeavors. Hello, peer review? Hello, scrutiny of data? Hello, careful analysis of methods? Left-wing hypocrisy at its worst, right here in this very thread.

That neatly sidesteps the basic perjorative of ku's post, but it still resorts to crude stereotyping. I find it disturbing and disappointing that a group as intelligent as this can't think of ANY positive aspects to conservatism. I think you can, and I think you should, if for no other reason that to disabuse me of the notion that you're adhering to political correctness! Can anyone respond to this challenge? (I'm gonna turn this car right around! Don't make me come back there!)

Riiiight. And liberalism means sticking with the politically correct, doing whatever they tell you, and so it doesn't require any thinking. You simply do what you're told. What clothes do I wear? Just wear what they tell me to wear. Don't bother with evolution or science, just ask Oprah. We have to move past that sort of ideological stereotyping, in my opinion. Being conservative doesn't make you stupid. A conservative has to react to a new situation just as a liberal does, and BOTH have the difficult task of challenging their ideologies to make sure they don't filter out viable options in the face of that challenge.

Posts related to religious discussion have been removed from this thread.

I don't usually post these scam warnings, but it's always better to err on the side of caution! Watch out, guys.... A "heads up" for those of you who may be regular Home Depot customers. Over the last month I became a victim of a clever scam while shopping. Simply going out to get supplies has turned out to be quite traumatic. Don't be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you or your friends. Here's how the scam works: Two seriously good-looking 20-21 year-old girls come over to your car as you are packing your shopping items into the trunk. They both start wiping your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their chest almost falling out of their skimpy T-shirts. It is impossible not to look. When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say "No" and instead ask you for a ride to another Home Depot or Lowe's. You agree and they get in the back seat. On the way, they start undressing. Then one of them climbs over into the front seat and starts crawling all over you, while the other one steals your wallet. I had my wallet stolen July 4th, 9th, 10th, twice on the 15th, 17th, 20th, & 24th. Also August 1st, 3rd, twice on the 7th, three times just yesterday and very likely again this upcoming weekend. So tell your friends to be careful.

Again you raise important points, and I agree that it's unfair for the right to brandish these labels and presumptions. But I think they chose this topic for a reason. I think it's reasonable to question what that reason might have been. You mention cases where science was unfairly admonished when the facts said the scientists were right. What about cases where the facts ultimately showed the science to be wrong? How many drugs were withdrawn from the market over the last couple of years? How many chemical products were hastily withdrawn amidst scientific speculation that later turned out to be false, and we lost a powerful and helpful ally like DDT, a drug which has never shown any solid evidence of harm and yet which people even right here in this forum continue to challenge the use of on the grounds that it harms people? I know you don't claim that scientists are demigods with supreme knowledge and authority, and I'm not chastising you. I'm saying that society puts too much power and authority in the hands of individual paper-writers who mash the press release button too early just so they can get published and get a name for themselves. If it turns out later they were wrong, well they just shrug and move on, hey it's not their fault the follow-up studies weren't done, if only we had a government that would do what it's supposed to do! Yeah, that must be it, it's the government's fault. Riiiiight. Scientists don't deserve canonization any more than they deserve demonization.

That's an understandable reaction, and one that I have myself sometimes, but I think it's unjustified in this case -- I haven't accused the authors of this paper of using "faux scientific evidence". I was speaking about a larger issue and raising the question of whether this might be an example. As I said from the start, I cannot read this paper because I'm unwilling to pay for it. I am willing, therefore, to keep an open mind about its methods and focus instead on why they chose this subject in the first place. If you work in academia you know that chosing a research topic is 9/10ths of the battle. I think it's possible this paper was written with an eye more on either ideological agenda or name-making than on actually proving a scientific point. And I think it's interesting to ask whether scientists who try to prove a liberalism-intelligence link are suffering from the same human frailty as religious zealots who try to prove the existence of god. I know it's not very politically correct to ask that question on a science board, but scientists are supposed to be above that sort of thing, and they're supposed to be above hypocrisy too.

I had much the same reaction to the Slate article -- the author extrapolated quite a bit. (And that's why I'm not an ideologue on this issue, Phil, because I see both sides of a debate. You see one undeniable truth, when actually quite a bit of reasonable doubt has already been cast. So... who's the ideologue, again?) I find myself wanting to reiterate the original premise, which is about a larger subject that doesn't seem to have generated much response thus far: My hypothesis: Some far-left ideologues feel a compulsion to prove a connection between liberalism and intelligence. And that this desire for a connection is fundamentally equivalent to the desire by some on the religious right to prove the existence of god through faux scientific evidence.

Do you really wonder? I wonder....

Dak I've explained what the relevence is, you're just determined to make a huge leap of faith that the authors buried a major contrary admission deep in their paper. I've no idea why you would make such a leap unless you were just determined to see what you want to see. I also have an predisposition here, but at least I'm up front about it. There isn't even the slightest hint that what you're suggesting is true. ........ <--- Oh and hang on, let me throw extra dots on the end of my first paragraph to dismissively hint that all normal people must feel as I do. There we go. I've made a prima facie case here. The onus is on others to disprove it, not just assume it's false and hint that anyone who shares my concern must be an idiot.

Agreed, except I'd have called Friedman the unrealistic blowhard and Chomsky diabolically evil. (grin)

Then why doesn't the study "show" that reaction times and visual accuity are more likely attributable to age than to political leaning? Answer: Because that wouldn't have been published.

I would assume that one category or the other MUST have at least a slightly higher number. That's obvious -- basic statistics. And as you say, Saryctos, it's quite possible that college influence has an impact here. What's that old addage about liberal when you're young and conservative when you get older and have a family to protect? I've always felt that there's a lot of truth in that notion. But that's not really what this thread is about. What I'm suggesting is that some people on the far left feel a need to prove that liberalism is the only possible ideology that a sufficiently intelligent person can possibly choose. The obvious correlary being that if you're conservative it has to be because you lack sufficient intelligence to be liberal. Not only is that notion ludicrous, and not only is it astonishing that people who ostensibly believe in the importance of scientific evidence and reasoning would follow that kind of mallarky (ok it's not astonishing, we see it every day right here at SFN -- just go check out the Pseudoscience board)..... .... but it strikes me as incredibly similar to the far-right need to prove the existence of GOD. There's something to this similarity, I believe. A desire for acceptance? A desire for objective confirmation? I don't know.

My hypothesis: Some far-left ideologues feel a compulsion to prove a connection between liberalism (though as Severian so neatly pointed out this morning, they really mean an enforced progressive agenda) and intelligence. And that this desire for a connection is fundamentally equivalent to the desire by some on the religious right to prove the existence of god through faux scientific evidence. By way of example, I offer this Slate opinion piece about a new scientific study published in this month's Nature attempting to connect liberalism and intelligence. I'd link the study itself, but it's under subscription so we can't read it without paying (how convenient). http://www.slate.com/id/2173965/?GT1=10436 The abstract from the study reads: Without the gobbledygook that reads "conservatives are rooted in inflexible, traditional thinking, and liberals are more open-minded and accepting of evidence".

Q: What do you call an neutron that's been around a while? A: An oldtron! (My niece told me that today and I was so overjoyed to hear her use the word "neutron" that I just had to post it!)

Just a friendly reminder -- only jokes are allowed to remain in this thread (aside from the occassional friendly reminder from staff -- like this). Everything else is deleted/edited/removed/whatever. If you have a question or comment or problem with a post, you can send a private message to a staff member or post on the Suggestions board. Thanks.

What do Chinese toy factory supervisors say to motivate their workers? "GET THE LEAD OUT!!!!!"

Math 1950-2006 Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried. Why do I tell you this? Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s: 1. Teaching Math In 1950 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit? 2. Teaching Math In 1960 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit? 3. Teaching Math In 1970 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit? 4. Teaching Math In 1980 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20. 5. Teaching Math In 1990 A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.) 6. Teaching Math In 2006 Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

Romance is like chess. One false move and you're mated!

Ireland's worst air disaster occurred today when a small two-seater Cessna plane crashed into a cemetery early this afternoon in central Ireland. Irish search and rescue workers have recovered 826 bodies so far and expect that number to climb as digging continues into the night.