I will be waiting on your validation your preposterous theory.

Dredging up a study to support your point works pretty well if you are
discussing something with a person who is easily intimidated or impressed by an
organization of fact. Of course, you don't mention that there have been,
literally, hundreds of studies done and that many of them disagree with one
another.

In fact, you get into hot water when you try to use as many as *two* studies to
support your point- as they usually disagree in some very significant details.

Example: Take your premise that Republicans are smarter than Democrats, (based
on the dubious assumption that one becomes progressively more intelligent with
additional time in school.
Is the guy who takes 15 years to graduate high school more intelligent than the
kids with whom he started kindergarten? Why not? He spent more time in school)

Your "R's are smarter than "D's" has a few studies to support the idea.

For instance: In the 1994-2002 General Social Survey, the results reflected
that the average Republican has 6/10ths of one year more education than the
average Democrat. This study showed that there was not really any statistically
significant difference in intellect between the most liberal democrats and the
most intelligent
rebublicans....what was interesting is that the working class democrats, who
tend to be more
centrist or conservative, were deemed to be less intelligent than the liberal
democrats or the
conservative republicans.

OK, all well and good, but wait! Oh no! Here's another study called the
"National Election Survey" of 2000. Not to rock your boat too badly, it also
claims that R's are smarter than D's......but oh, look. The "National Election
Survey" subjectively rates intelligence on a 31-point scale, places D's 3.3
points behind R's on that 31-point scale, and says the difference represents
"several years of formal education."

Well, crap. Seems your studiers and surveyors can't get their spin coordinated,
doesn't it?
One guy says the difference in education is 6/10th of a year (about one
semester in a 16-17 year education).......and the other guy says the difference
is "several years."

So, how do we reconcile these two studies? Do we use the one study that claims
the average R has 6/10th of a year more education than the average D, that the
most liberal democrats are as smart as the most conservative republicans, and
that the dumbest bricks in the load are the
moderate or conservative democrats?

Or do we use the study that says the difference is "several years of formal
education."?

I would suppose it depends entirely on what you hope to "prove" by using the
study, doesn't it?

It's like a civil or criminal trial. One side brings in charts, graphs,
studies, and sworn experts to support its position- and then the other side
brings in charts, graphs, studies, an sworn experts to support the opposite
side of the question.

For anybody to say, "I've got this one survey that says what I want it to say
and you're an idiot for not blindly accepting it or for considering other data"
might indicate that the idiocy is not confined to the
party being called "idiot" in the discussion.