DGuller; vindicated. The horrible news at 11

[jimmy olsen]

Graphs and such after the link

Political moderates and independents are not as smart on average

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/10/political-moderates-and-independents-are-not-as-smart-on-average/#more-18620

[DGuller]

[Berkut]

I wouldn't be too proud of yourself:

the smart know where to go to reinforce their biases. That is, they're far better at motivated reasoning, and become progressively more polarized and ideological.

This is basically saying that people who are smarter than average are good at knowing how to shit their brain off once they find something that appeals to them, and simply regurgitate the words of the talking heads they identify as their stand in for independent thought.

So I guess it means maybe if you are slightly smarter than the average person who doesn't think about politics enough to form an allegiance, you end up firmly ensconced in your chosen tribe, bleating their chosen mantra back at the opposing tribe members.

Those who are significantly smarter than that realize that substituting one sides "expert" opinion for their own ability to think objectively is hardly an improvement over the average masses who don't think at all about it - and it may very well be considerably worse.

No question it is a far cry in utility from being smart enough to reject the tribalism inherent in "smart liberals trust Paul Krugman, and smart conservatives trust Greg Mankiw."

[Syt]

people who are smarter than average are good at knowing how to shit their brain off

[DGuller]

   I think I'll go with Tim's analysis.

[Berkut]

  I think I'll go with Tim's analysis.

Of course you will - that is *exactly* what the article predicted you would do - forgo thinking about it objectively in favor of deferring to an "expert" you recognize as vastly smarter than yourself!

[jimmy olsen]

  I think I'll go with Tim's analysis.

Of course you will - that is *exactly* what the article predicted you would do - forgo thinking about it objectively in favor of deferring to an "expert" you recognize as vastly smarter than yourself!

Woo!

[Martinus]

I think the study confuses "moderates" and "independents". Considering that most big tent parties' platforms tend to be a hodge podge of incoherent ideas, I would say that, if the study is right, smart persons would tend to be more extreme about their ideas, but unlikely to support the platform of a party in its entirety, thus more likely to be either independent or supporting a "one issue" party (such as libertarians).

Edit: Before various grumblers latch on it - of course libertarians are not a one issue party, per se, but they are a party that does not try to take a view on every aspect of the polity, but rather focus on one aspect of it. This is opposed to big tent parties which usually have comprehensive (you could say "totalitarian") platforms. "One issue" parties are more ideologically pure as a result, whereas big tent parties attempt to marry various interest groups or reflect a historical alliance that may be ideologically contradictory.

[Berkut]

Meh, the real response here is not nearly as much fun as trying to use it to mock each other.

The reality is, I am sure, that more intelligent people tend to be more partisan than the average simply because the average is overall pretty much clueless about political issues altogether, and hence "independent" or "moderate".

I don't think that follows for people who are politically aware/active, and yet still remain non-partisan/independent.

[Eddie Teach]

I thought this thread was going to be about somebody dying of blueberry poisoning.

[Phillip V]

Berkut is right.

[Razgovory]

That is statistically unlikely.