Gould,
Your memory must be fading. This conversation started when you said:
" Kerry's supporters publish well documented, thoroughly researched items
like the one
you posted-" "Meanwhile, the right wing relies on slogan, rumor, insult,
and easily
remembered but out-of-context sound bytes to attract that portion of the
electorate that is more numerous, but less mentally adept."

Since I did not agree with your theory (or opinion as you call it), and I
found it repugnant and elitist. I wanted to see if it held any water. I
could not find one report, or one study that agreed with your opinion. All
of the studies you found agreed that republicans have a higher level of
education than democrats.

I then looked for information concerning education and informed voters.
Wow, I found a reliable study that did say their is a correlation between
education and being informed about the issues and not relying on sound
bites.

I could not find any information that said democrats were more informed than
republicans.

Contrary to your assertion, I did not say someone becomes more intelligent
the longer they stay in school. I said on the average college graduates
have a higher IQ than high school graduates. On the average, those with
higher IQ stay in school longer than those with low IQ. Hence my theory
that the average college graduate has a higher IQ than the average high
school graduate.

I did say that nature and nurturing can have a drastic impact on ones
intelligence and IQ.

Finally, I did not say you had to accept my studies and survey's.

I said if you wanted your premise to have any validity you should see if you
can find any information that would support your thesis.

Obviously you can not.

Remember it was you who started slinging the mud concerning republicans lack
of intelligence, you should not be so upset when respected Universities
publish information that disagrees with your opinion.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.