Statistically the smartest men are liberal and atheists

Because republicans are too busy making a living to fuck around learning about women's rights and fuckasio

Simple correlation.

A smart man will not believe in any dogma that can't be proved and that is clearly meant to control his life and his mind. And he won't be fooled with ineffective policy that fixes no problem while it creates new problems.

You've got to be a little dumb (just a bit is enough) to believe in supernatural beings.

And as Churcill said: "if a man isn't a socialist by age 20, he has no heart. But if a man isn't a conservative by age 40, he has no brain".

>Makes extraordinary claims and doesn't provide extraordinary evidence.
>Proceeds to call everyone else dumb for not dying their sourceless bullshit.
Sure thing, little buddy, sure thing. :^)

fucking idiot

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/15/educational-divide-in-vote-preferences-on-track-to-be-wider-than-in-recent-elections/

>Doesn't specify the field of study.
They could be Warcraft or even women's studies degrees you fucking numbnuts.

Postscriptum, do you know what is funny? Republicans have the wealthier voters, which means? They are the ones with serious degrees while liberals have liberal arts majors you dumbcunt.

Not OP, but here. Resume discussion now, neckbeards

www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion

>mfw all the butthurt /pol/cucks ITT

b-but librul jewish indoctrination! Smarts don't mean they understand the world! NEETs can see the truth of things better than geniuses!

For what I can see ITT, "/pol/tards" have been quite polite for Veeky Forums standards.

I advise to keep both dem/liberal and rep/conservative shitposting and inflammatory bait away from Veeky Forums, please.

Social sciences and statistics do not apply here anyway

Most policy ultimately comes down to moral subjectivity.
A physicists doesn't inherently know more about politics than anyone else.

Maybe someone with a triple PhD in economics, cognitive psychology and neuroscience I'd take their opinion seriously, but I really don't care what some climatologist thinks about economic protectionism.

Someone who really had it all figured out probably wouldn't vote all much less give a shit who anyone else votes for.

>Realizes that OP is actually right
>B-but we are polite!

I think that tbe smartest prople ttend to be on the bottom half of the political compass rather than the top

T. Libertarian fedora tipper

depends on what their degrees were

>People in academia vote for more gibs
Not surprised.

Go home anti-intellectual scum

>implying you need to be college educated to be intelligent
>implying welders and other tradesmen can't be intelligent
Good goyyyyyyyy

>Stating the obvious is being a Philistine
What ever. Most people that earn 50k $+ vote republican. Scientists just want more funding so they vote for the gibs party. Which is expected

>Most people that earn 50k $+ vote republican
That has very little to do with science.

Kill yourself /pol/tard

>That has very little to do with science
Being a scientist is not an inficator of intelligence either.

>voting for their own cultural suicide makes them intelligent somehow

>Scientists
This table uses this word for brainlets who will get a BSc before flipping burgers. Not for smart people who will build new theories and bring knowledge to the world (no, Bill Nye doesn't count, I mean real knowledge).

>implying that voting for a con artist makes you smart

Notice how the burger flippers lean decidedly more republican, see 'Industry'

KEK you just BTFO yourself retard

Poor people vote democrat. 50k $+ earners massively vote republican

You just said the table included burger flippers and I said yeah, they're represented in the 'industry' row and they skew a lot more republican

Don't change the subject to income now, you got BTFO you cuck.

>you got BTFO you cuck.
Are you 12?

Not him btw, just saw this on the front page and wanted to direct you back to . Sage

>damage controlling this hard
You're a dumb republican, just deal with it.

>implying 100% of the voting electorate didn't vote for one con artist or another

...

*intelligence high enough to significantly differentiate you from the average person
99% scientists are doing lab work. not making breakthroughs in physics and math.

>99% scientists are doing lab work.
First off, this is incorrect. Second of all, it's clear you have never been in a lab or talked to any lab researcher. All PhDs working in labs are very far removed from the common population in terms of intelligence.I know you'd like to think that working in science is not that difficult and the gap between scientists and the average person isn't that big (I'd like that too, it would mean that attaining high research positions wouldn't be that bad), but it is. I've said this before, actual researchers might as well be considered superhumans relative to NEETs, a different subspecies.

>inb4 I worship scientists and professors
Not all of them are decent, but ALL of them are more intelligent than you and me, at least in natural sciences and mathematics, the ones that matter.

I'm a little skeptical of this. What is the age group of those begin polled? I highly doubt that they would go throughout the trouble to track down scientists actually working in their fields, so I think it's a good bet to say that they just polled some college kids set to get degrees in their field. It especially makes sense because of the ought number of 'independent' folks. I don't ke anyone over the age of 35 who unironicly identifies as an indpendant.

Except this is false. The IQs of researchers have been evaluated and they all fall within a pretty slim margin. A firefighter, an engineer, and a biologist are all more likely to share the same IQ than not.

If you consider 10-15 iq points far removed, but I don't.
Not in the context of a system as complicated as global economics.

>screenshot of a spreadsheet with numbers and no citations
wow, I guess I can't refute that. you win

Maybe you are stupid and see them like that. It's difficult, but no where near superhuman levels.

Higher paid people voted for Trump

Enjoy your adjunct professorships plebs

theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

Jordan Peterson has done some interesting work on this. Basically liberals tend to have personality traits such as openness and interest in novelty. This pairs well with professions focused on considering and developing new ideas, such as actively doing science. Conservatives tend to have traits such as conscientiousness and order, which is more about being industrious and working within the rules as they already exist. The theoretical physicist would more likely to be a liberal, and the mechanical engineer more likely to be a conservative, on average.

>higher paid people vote for massive tax decrease on the rich (them) and taking away welfare benefits that benefit the poor (not them)
hmmm

Rather than "higher paid" I should have said anyone making over 50k/year.

Only the poorest of the poor voted Hillary

You forgot to make a point.

>46% of highest earners voted for Hillary
>only the poorest of the poor voted Hillary
hmmm

In fact the statistic you're showing points to very weak income - voting preference correlation. In fact the edge Hillary has on the poor is most probably due to minorities and immigrants

Communist indoctrination at institutions of higher education.

>a degree in gender studies means I'm smart

>libtards who got conned by bernie voted for Hillary.
You don't really have a case to defend there.

I don't think you yourself have a case there. The thread here started with saying that educated people vote liberal. If I assume your first post was here just to imply that it's welfare queens after women studies, then it didn't work. While it's true Hillary won vote of the poor, there is very weak correlation between actual income and voting for her or not. In fact in the top brackets she pretty much losses by 1% and 2%. It's easily explained in how Trump tax cut mostly benefits the rich in addition, in fact he should've won more in that bracket. Given the whole difference oscillates around a few % everywhere and the actual academia statistics show landslide victories also makes it hard to believe it was just some useless degrees.

If I assume it was just to say that higher paid people vote Trump and they are cool, then it's what I said before. Big tax cut on the rich by Trump of course will make those same people love him. In fact something is wrong with Trump if he barely manages to win those votes.

It's from a Pew report. Should be easy to find if you really want it.
The Pew article has a behind the Survey section if you really want to know.

$50k+ is NOT rich, not nearly

250k is rich tho

It's a median income not average income. the top 1% don't skew the median at all.

Logical reasoning leads to this conclusions

>communism
>logical
lol

>liberals are communists

I don't understand this meme...

Really gets the noggin joggin

You should pick up a history book

intelligent liberals (or people on average), I would say, tend to have a high degree of openness to experience. They're openness to experience and adventurous nature will lead them down a path where they will see things in different ways. They believe this makes them intellectually or outright superior to a conservative, but from what I can tell, they aren't intelligent or far-sighted enough to see the flaws in their world view or their psychological model of how they think the world ought to work.

The liberal thinks: Hey, why shouldn't people be able to do X, Y, & Z? The rules against X, Y, & Z are stopping those people from experiencing life how they want to experience it.

The liberal doesn't realize what that does to a society over time and generations, let alone the (((social diseases))) that mindset makes society susceptible to.

Let the average IQ be around 100 for a western country. Most estimates on people working in the natural sciences or mathematics for BACHELORS fall within 120-135 (any IQ thread on Veeky Forums). Keep in mind, that's for bachelors, not the PhDs that are the brightest and most hard-working of the lot. That skews things even further.

You think it's not difficult because all you see is a bunch of science shit online that you consider readable and understandable given a sufficient amount of time. Intellectual capacity and the ability to form complex arguments is not just proven by the difficulty of the exams that researchers undertook some years ago, it's the discipline and willingness to engage themselves in mentally straining thoughts and papers that others would throw aside at the first chance. This is the reason literally everyone would have more faith in a political argument put forth by a scientific researcher than a NEET whose only political argument involves living alongside blacks.

Lol I'm currently working at a lab you brainlet faggot.

kek are you the guy that said that 99% of scientists work in labs?

>All these butthurt /pol/tards

why is this thread still up? this place really needs better moderation

>/2009/07/09
lel this why trump won more states than obama. the entire world changed and they dont even know it yet

>This is the reason literally everyone would have more faith in a political argument put forth by a scientific researcher than a NEET whose only political argument involves living alongside blacks.
>reverts to racism as a crutch when he gets BTFO

You obviously didn't understand his point.
Lynn also has studies that show scientists tend to be liberal as well. It is a recurring thing, and seeing as how Clinton won people with graduate degrees it probably didn't change