Tag Archives: winguts

Science: Conservatives are stupid

Synchronicity is fun.

As I compose this, the top three most-viewed Yahoo! News stories right now are:

“Low IQ and Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice”

“President Obama, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Share Tense Tarmac Moment”

“Arizona Gov. Brewer Gets Book Critique from Obama”

The first article begins thusly:

There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario.

Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an e-mail to LiveScience. …

“This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact [with groups outside of one’s own] reduces prejudice,” said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science….*

This is the image that Yahoo! News used with both pieces on Repugnican Tea Party Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s recent obviously orchestrated tiff with President Barack Obama on her home turf:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer points during an intense conversation with President Barack Obama after he arrived at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012, in Mesa, Ariz. Asked moments later what the conversation was about, Brewer, a Republican, said: "He was a little disturbed about my book." Brewer recently published a book, "Scorpions for Breakfast," something of a memoir of her years growing up and defends her signing of Arizona's controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants, which Obama opposes. Obama was objecting to Brewer's description of a meeting he and Brewer had at the White House, where she described Obama as lecturing her. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

Associated Press photo

The caption for this news photo reads:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer points during an intense conversation with President Barack Obama after he arrived at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012, in Mesa, Arizona. Asked moments later what the conversation was about, Brewer, a Republican, said: “He was a little disturbed about my book.” Brewer recently published a book, Scorpions for Breakfast, something of a memoir of her years growing up and defends her signing of Arizona’s controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants, which Obama opposes. Obama was objecting to Brewer’s description of a meeting he and Brewer had at the White House, where she described Obama as lecturing her.

Indeed, who is this uppity Negro to be lecturing the white governor of Arizona?

Why Obama agrees to meet with Brewer at all escapes me, since she only uses any meeting with him as future campaign material — and now, to boost her book sales — by supposedly showing her fellow white supremacists in Arizona, the South Africa of the Southwest, how she so bravely stood up to the black president. (Except that he isn’t the legitimate president, right?)

To those Arizonans who believe that Jan Brewer — who appeared to be drunk or otherwise intoxicated or otherwise significantly neurologically impaired during her first and only gubernatorial debate in 2010 (after her incredibly horrible first debate performance she refused to participate in any more debates) — is a great stateswoman, perhaps she does look like some hot shit openly publicly disrespecting President Barack Obama.

To those of us who don’t suffer from intellectual deficiency — and who thus aren’t conservative — however, Jan Brewer looks like what she is: an old, racist, wingnutty hag, a stupid, braying jackass.

I’ve always disliked the term “conservative,” because the vast majority of conservatives are just abject fucking morons. “Conservativism” sounds like a legitimate political school of thought, when, in fact, more often than not it indicates severe intellectual deficiency.

I look forward to the developing science on this topic. (Of course, the wingnuts eschew science — science and facts have a well-known liberal bias, you know so their feelings shouldn’t be hurt that much.)

*The LiveScience article is worth reading in full, and the money shot of the article, in my book, is the study’s psychologist’s essential assertion that to associate with groups that are different from one’s own is so mentally taxing that dipshits don’t even bother. This would, I suppose, explain the homogeneity of the red states and the red regions within the purplish and blue states: the dipshits huddle together in their ignorance and fear.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

This is your brain on Rush

Delaware Republican senatorial candidate ODonnell ...

Former Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican vice ...

Reuters photos

Woman who knows no fear could offer brain clues

AFP photo

Joe Miller

Associated Press photo

Indonesias dragons draw tourists to Jurassic ...

AFP photo

Do all of these creatures have big ol’ amygdalas?

There is news out that British scientists have discovered a difference between the brains of liberals and the brains of conservatives (yes, apparently scientists actually have found brains inside of conservative skulls).

Apparently, conservatives have larger amygdalas than do liberals, and liberals have thicker anterior cingulates than do conservatives.

Huh? you say.

A Brit scientist explains that “The amygdala is a part of the brain which is very old and very ancient and thought to be very primitive and to do with the detection of emotions.”

Uh, would that be the “reptilian brain” that the scientists talk about? Wouldn’t having a larger primitive portion of the brain make the individual more primitive?

A Salon.com piece on the British brain research states that

The amygdala — typically thought of as the “primitive brain” — is responsible for reflexive impulses, like fear. The anterior cingulate is thought to be responsible for courage and optimism. This one-two punch could be responsible for many of the anecdotal claims that conservatives “think differently” from others.

Wow. I’ve always thought that wingnuts were from a different planet — or at least comprise a different species — but there seems to be emerging proof

Of course, while I’m certainly no brain researcher, I have to wonder whether people are born with a left-wing or a right-wing brain or if the brain structure itself changes over time as the result of nurture. A person brought up in a rabidly right-wing family, for instance: brought up in an environment of fear, does the fear center of his or her brain hypertrophy in response?

Is there a correlation between being type A (uptight) and being conservative and being type B (mellow) and being liberal?

How much does nature and how much does nurture contribute to one’s political orientation and to any brain differences that correlate to political orientation?

There’s so much that we don’t know, but outsized reptilian brains in the likes of tea-baggers Joe Miller and Christine O’Donnell just might (help) explain why I don’t feel any kinship whatsofucking ever to such fascists as Miller and O’Donnell, who are in the news lately — Miller because even though the re-election of U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska finally was certified today after the state’s Supreme Court and a federal court both ruled that she won the election fairly and squarely, Miller still might continue his legal battle to have obvious write-in votes for Murkowski thrown out on technicalities*, and O’Donnell (who also lost her tea-baggin’ bid for the U.S. Senate) because she is crying that a federal probe into whether or not she illegally put campaign funds to personal use is purely political, that she’s a victim, when, of course, she either did or did not break the law, which the probe should uncover.

Anyway, maybe one day the No. 1 piece of information that we’re going to want to know about a political candidate is the result of his or her brain scan…

But I can tell you, without a scan, that my anterior cingulate is fucking humongous.

*Team Miller actually wanted votes thrown out if Murkowski’s name was written in but the oval next to her name was not filled in, and wanted all misspellings thrown out, notes The Associated Press. Below is an AP photo of an actual ballot that Team Miller challenged:

FILE - In this Nov. 11, 2010 file photo, a challenged ...

Associated Press photo

The voter forgot the “w” and so apparently used a caret mark to squeeze it in between the “o” and the “s”, yet Team Miller apparently would invalidate this vote. And this one, too, because the voter wrote “Murkowski, Lisa” instead of “Lisa Murkowski”:

A challenged ballot is shown Thursday, Nov. 11, ...

Associated Press photo

And this one, too, because the voter apparently writes his or her “s’s” and “k’s” in a non-standard way:

A challenged ballot is shown Thursday, Nov. 11, ...

AP photo

Wow. That’s just fucking evil, to know that the voter fully intended to vote for Murkowski, but to throw out the vote on a technicality. On this ballot, the voter indeed misspelled “Murkowski,” but can any reasonable, truthful individual truthfully assert that the voter did not intend to vote for Lisa Murkowski?

A write-in vote is shown on a ballot Wednesday, ...

AP photo

Thankfully, the courts that Team Miller went whining to agreed that Team Miller’s complete and total disregard for the will of the Alaskan voter is moose shit.

What kind of person wants elected political office whether he or she really won the office or not?

OK, George W. Bush, you say.

Well, yeah, true, but it’s gratifying to know that although the U.S. Supreme Court kicked democracy in the teeth (and then shit and pissed all over it) and handed the presidential election to Bush in 2000, Team Miller hasn’t had similar success in subverting the democratic process.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized