Banner
    Is television intrinsically Left-Wing?
    By Robert H Olley | May 31st 2011 11:28 AM | 32 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Robert H

    Until recently, I worked in the Polymer Physics Group of the Physics Department at the University of Reading.

    I would describe myself

    ...

    View Robert H's Profile
    This morning I read this in our Daily Telegraph:

    It is television, not just the people who make it, which has a Left-wing bias


    Here is the core of the article
    But it’s also the case that television is itself Left-wing. The very medium makes it easier to present liberal messages, which tend to revolve around more obvious and simple cases of right and wrong, and which tend to trigger positive emotional responses in the audience. So, for example, it’s easier to present, whether it’s a kid’s programme with a talking bird or a 30-minute sit-com, the idea that conflict can be resolved peacefully. It’s far harder to present the argument that sometimes it cannot, that not all grievances are legitimate and that just because people hate you, it doesn’t mean you deserved it.
    Gentle Reader (to borrow an expression from Telugu), do you agree with this?

    Comments

    Hank
    The Telegraph slighting a competitor in another medium can't pass without notice.    Why can't 400 word articles designed to be understood by as many people as possible be simplistic the same way television is?  They are, of course.  

    For this reason I generally agree that all media skews left - this site included - to varying degrees unless they set out with a mandate to go to the right of traditional media (which may be the middle or the right, hard to say).   Journalism is about telling a story - and the more complicated the topic, the more it gets in the way of the narrative.    
    liberal messages, which tend to revolve around more obvious and simple cases of right and wrong,

    Ahahahahhahahahaaaaaaaaa

    (According to the reCaptcha even "jobjarn" is "amused".)

    Times have certainly changed. In my youth the evening fare included more crime/detective shows and shoot-em-up westerns than any other genre.

    I tend not to watch much television now. The 'journalism' that I have watched lately leaves me mostly cold and disgusted. I'd rather visit Science20.

    Here is where I had it wrong. Quote : . . . because the whole point of TV is to make us feel good. :/Quote
    I was foolishly thinking that it was entertainment. If television is a business, then the market will dictate what the final product will be.

    Gerhard Adam
    I also think that part of the problem between "left" and "right" is that while many people might agree with the "right" sentiment, there are huge gaps between the beliefs and the reality of implementation.

    I've had this argument too many times, where it sounds great to talk about people taking personal responsibility and to suffer the consequences from their own choices.  However, it's a bit different when those consequences may result in someone's actually starving to death, or is felt by children suffering due to bad parental decisions.  As a result, we find that these ideas may be popular, but their ability to actually be implemented almost never materializes (or it simply appears cruel).

    I do agree that the "left" position of arbitrarily helping simply leads itself open to exploitation by those that want to "game" the system, but until these issues are actually discussed, there will be this split between what people may believe versus how they express those beliefs (or how they appear on television).
    Mundus vult decipi
    Left wing bias like the Fox News channel?! Left wing bias like Kevin O' Leary on CBC? Left wing bias like those turn-brains-into mush shows like, "So You Stink and Can't Dance" ? Seriously...televison caters to most political views.
    kwombles

    Television skews to the left? I think that's probably true in general. But, there are some conservative or right wing bastions, like the religious networks or Fox News.

    I think that television programming tends to cater to the lowest common denominator most of the time, unfortunately, and what will bring the most viewers in to sell the most ad dollars.

    All we have tv-wise is what comes through the antenna; we do most our watching through netflix or online, so we've managed to tailor our viewing to fit our tastes. It puts us outside what's readily available and consumable because we simply don't get exposed to it; we don't watch entertainment shows or read entertainment sites outside of the syfy site. It makes for a nice insulation from the real world, I think. I also yell less at the tv. :)

    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” --MLK, Jr.
    Hank
    Television skews to the left? I think that's probably true in general. But, there are some conservative or right wing bastions, like the religious networks or Fox News.
    The fact that there is only Fox News versus ABC,NBC,CBS, PBS and CNN (not to mention MSNBC and others on cable) says television, at least in the US, is left.
    Gerhard Adam
    The fact that there is only Fox News versus ABC,NBC,CBS, PBS and CNN (not to mention MSNBC and others on cable) says television, at least in the US, is left.
    I think the problem you mention is different from what's being described.  There is no such thing as "left" news or "right" news.  The problem here isn't to achieve balance, but rather to get back into the business of reporting news instead of opinions.  

    It's almost impossible to find any network that actually does any kind of "analysis" and even the programs that were supposed to provide opposing viewpoints (like "Crossfire") were largely a joke that exacerbated the split rather than addressing it.
    Mundus vult decipi
    It's almost impossible to find any network that actually does any kind of "analysis" and even the programs that were supposed to provide opposing viewpoints (like "Crossfire") were largely a joke that exacerbated the split rather than addressing it.
    Indeed. That's what's really lacking on television and in other media.
    kwombles
    Add to that how often they get the facts of a story wrong, or their need for false equivalency, and the news has become an unreliable way of being accurately informed.  

    I thought the original question, though, was television in general, not just news programming.

    Where would the variety of reality tv shows from Hoarders to the shallow shows about housewives and sundry fit in? 

    Doesn't the need to define what we mean by liberal weigh in at some point? Is liberal different in the UK than the US?  If we broaden the discussion to all programming, does liberal become something more than democratic (to keep to a US-centric view)?  

    How do liberal values shape fictional shows? I think that, again, as I said, although tv is in general liberal, it doesn't hurt to point out that there have been shows that promoted traditional and conservative values, even if they've been in the minority. If we just turn to the plot lines and devices, though, there isn't much difference: the perceived good guy usually wins, and the story is resolved usually within one episode. I'm not sure that, in terms of plot lines and the resolutions offered, that there's a lot difference in how a Touched by An Angel episode and a Men of a Certain Age episode, for example.

    Tangentially, I've personally thought the desirable values of both outlooks can be wedded and the undesirable values shed so that one prizes hard work, small government, support of those in need, and acceptance of individuals regardless of their sexual preferences, religious beliefs, gender, etc. (and as an aside, think most science fiction shows do a good job of espousing that ethic).



    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” --MLK, Jr.
    Gerhard Adam
    How do liberal values shape fictional shows?
    I don't know about liberal, but there's certainly a fair amount of political correctness that is often involved.  Generally I find those ideas represented by the choice of characterization and how roles are assigned rather than anything that has to do with fundamental values.

    Most of the time, the criteria seems to be what is entertaining, or what moves the action along.  It rarely has much semblance to reality (left or right), so I'm not convinced that it is very influential.  However, it would probably be fair to argue that various shows may offer different "values" that people may associate with "right" or "left".

    In general though, television is (by definition almost) right wing in how programming is determined, since it is fundamentally a result of "free market" forces determining what is popular versus what isn't.  In short, I don't think a simple label can accurately describe the television experience.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank
    TV executives just go ahead and admit being liberal and intentionally hiring liberals, which is the same thing as discrimination against conservatives: TV Executives Admit in Taped Interviews That Hollywood Pushes a Liberal Agenda
    Gerhard Adam
    What does that say about the general public if such programming continues to garner ratings?  It also seems a bit difficult to consider that Fox Network doesn't provide an alternative vehicle if this liberalism is as pervasive as suggested.  Certainly there will be entire segments of society (including professionals) that will probably be oriented in a particular political direction, but I'm not convinced that this is a result of bias, or simply the nature of what people are attracted to certain professions. 

    I think it can certainly be argued the military is probably more conservative on average, but that doesn't make the military biased towards conservatism.  I suspect you'd hear the same comments about conservatism if you interviewed executives at Fox News, too.  My point isn't to refute your claim, but rather to argue that such bias is going to exist among any collection of people and I don't see how it can be readily changed. 

    I also noticed that some of the comments originated with various producers, which would be expected whether they were conservative or liberal.  It's hard to imagine anyone creating stories that isn't influenced to produce their "message" in some form or another. 

    However, at the end of the day, it still comes down to what sells and it simply seems that whether there's an agenda or not, the public doesn't seem to object to it in any material way.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank
    What does that say about the general public if such programming continues to garner ratings?  
    It says the people with control and a world view they want to promote won't rest until they are the majority everywhere, as witnessed by their efforts to get 'liberal' talk radio subsidized by the government.   It's the only media they don't already control.
    Gerhard Adam
    It says the people with control and a world view they want to promote won't rest until they are the majority everywhere...
    If you stop there, I would agree with your statement; conservative or liberal.
    It's the only media they don't already control.
    Well, we also know that conservatives have some media control, so the only thing that could be argued is who has the "majority" control.  Unless there is to be a 50/50 split, there will obviously always be one viewpoint that has a "majority" interest, and even if we included more than two views, there would be some that could argue undue influence.  After all, we could easily see that religious channels vastly outnumber scientific ones, but I attribute that more to population preferences rather than a control issue.

    Despite the supposed influence, I don't see the U.S. as being particularly liberal or conservative once you look beyond the fringes. 

    I certainly agree that no media should be subsidized to provide preferential access to any particular worldview.  The only exception I might see to that, would be if there were a way to ensure and enforce true objectivity, but I won't hold my breath for that to occur.
    Mundus vult decipi
    rholley
    no media should be subsidized to provide preferential access to any particular worldview.
    Gerhard,

    You should see the BBC!  Not only is it subsidized, we have to pay the licence fee in order to watch other, commercial channels.

    They like to consider themselves unbiassed, but they have a particular worldview and set of criteria which determines who are the goodies and baddies in a particular conflict.

    They also, as I understand, only advertise in the Guardian, which
    identifies with centre-left liberalism and its readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion.
    But more than that, they always select people like themselves.  I think a job interview there must like a bizarre game of Tetris, and if you have knobs and crevices in the right places, you’re in!  Hardly leading to a wide-ranging outlook on the world.

    They want minorities to be heavily represented, so if you’re applying for a job, and identify yourself as Welsh or Scottish, well and good; but if you identify yourself as English, forget it!

    They have also been, over the last few decades, been very naive in regard to their handling of the troubles in Northern Ireland (which happens to be my
    故鄉.)  But more recently, I was ringing a friend there, and he said.
    Both sides are angry with them, so they must be doing something right!



    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Hank
    We have PBS and NPR and only one side is angry with them so they are an unfair subsidy that promotes a particular worldview - but they are orders of magnitude cheaper than the BBC, only $400 million or so.  Imagine what Science 2.0 could do with only 0.25% of that!
    Ladislav Kocbach
    Do we have a "scientific definition" of left and right in the sense used here? I suppose we have NO definition shared by any two persons. Generally, if a person thinks she or he belongs to the "left", they would characterize all that they dislike either as extreme (left) or more probably "right", and naturally, vice versa. I especially appreciate the use of "liberal" in this connection, since that is completely mixed up with libertarian and whatever combination of freedom one can misuse. I would naively think that "freedom" would always be a positive word generally - how naive I am! 
    There where I move and breath the explanation of the "left" seems more natural. The "left" is usually associated with "change". Anybody who is in any way active and caring would from time to time argument for some change. Thus most thinking people would from time to time appear on "the left" (to some individuals, naturally not "objectively"), just because they are thinking and thus arguing for a change. 

    People who think that they are on the left sometimes do quite unreasonable things, whether in TV or other places. But that would not place them to the "right". This is a simple "mathematical model without math" of how the apparent "left bias" appears. Well, it is not yet very convincing, but if I put it in a somewhat obscure formula, it might become a good mathematical model of "apparent left bias". Probably already known for tens of years. 

    Just to bring back the main element: apparent left bias appears due to the association of "change", criticism, with "left". Anybody who is thinking and thus arguing sometimes for a change at all would thus appear to some individuals as "left biased" sometimes. There is no opposite bias creating mechanism. One is not associated with "right" due to simple lack of brain activity, neither with "left". Also, not all opposing to a change would be associated with "right".

    So when the media appear left biased, it means that they are somewhat healthy, their actors at least sometimes think. At the moment the media start appearing "right biased", we will have a problem. Then they have stopped thinking, according to my "mathematical" model.
    When the conservative movement is taken over by radical right-wingers and pushed to the far extreme, everything else seems left-wing in comparison.

    Hank
    Unfortunately,  When the conservative progressive movement is taken over by radical right- left-wingers and pushed to the far extreme, everything else seems leftright-wing in comparison.

    To those of us in the middle, you are both actually pretty kooky - and you both make the same claims about caring about people.  And neither do.
    I only know and so can only speak about American politics, specifically in terms of polling data. The middle in America among average Americans is liberal/progressive and increasingly so as time goes on. But the mainstream media and the professional politicians is to the right of the middle. The problem created by this is that those who have the most influence over public debate are to the right of the general public. If the media was truly left-wing, the media pundits and reporters wouldn't constantly be calling one another left-wingers as if it were an insult.

    http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/us-demographics-incr...

    http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/liberalism-label-vs-...

    Hank
    The middle in America among average Americans is liberal/progressive and increasingly so as time goes on. But the mainstream media and the professional politicians is to the right of the middle. 
    You sound like you actually believe this, but it is a silly, unsubstantiated assertion of how you want things to be.
    "You sound like you actually believe this," says the anti-intellectual who denies the facts presented to him because they don't fit his beliefs.

    Hank
    Your political and cultural world view are not actually "facts", they are just beliefs - you live in a world where you filter everything through how left it is, so a lot seems to be on the right, including the middle. That is a fact.
    I have no interest in having a war of baseless opinions. I've offered you data. You've offered me nothing besides opinions. You haven't even acknowledged the fact that I've offered you data. I'm sure you didn't even look at the data because you know it would disprove your opinions. All I care about is the data. If you want to intelligently criticize the data I've offered by offering other data, then I would gladly welcome your doing so. Until then, your opinions don't trump my data. We are all free to have our own opinions, but we aren't free to have our own facts.

    http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/black-and-white-and-...

    http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/npr-liberal-bias/

    http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/the-establishment-ob...

    Gerhard Adam
    Well, I certainly have a problem with some of the linked articles.  In the first one, there's a discussion regarding Jon Stewart and Arianna Huffington, which bears absolutely no resemblance to what actually occurred.
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-28-2010/arianna-huffington

    Perhaps it was a different show, but the characterization of Stewart is simply wrong. 
    He regularly treats conservative guests with kid gloves, while turning into a tough interrogator of liberal guests. In the latter category, Arianna Huffington’s appearance was a sorry spectacle, with Stewart constantly interrupting and saying things like, “What’s the point? We can’t do anything about this stuff, anyway!”
    This article isn't helped by later referencing Satoshi Kanazawa and his strange assertion that liberals have higher IQs.  On the face of it, IQ is far too nebulous a metric to be meaningful and yet by linking it into a political viewpoint, it's being presented as if there were a scientific basis for it.
    In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel.  So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
    While this comment might be typical in evolutionary psychology, it is ludicrous in its assertions.  It has absolutely no basis in fact [consider that many conservatives serve in capacities that are quite altruistic; i.e. military, fire/police] so to characterize liberals as being more caring about genetically unrelated strangers is simply nonsense.

    In fact, to invoke "evolution" in this capacity illustrates more of a misunderstanding than insight, since it should be clear that neither conservatives nor liberals are hunter-gatherers, so to suggest that there's some of evolutionary split between these groups is ridiculous. 

    While there may be many reasons for people having a diverse set of beliefs and values, your argument isn't helped by such specious examples and reasoning.  As with any set of beliefs, there will be exceptions in any attempt to categorize something as broad as "conservatism" or "liberalism".  I do agree that media such as "Fox News and many conservatives love playing the "victim" card to annoy liberals.  When my conservative friends want to argue that the media is displaying liberal bias, I usually tell them that it isn't bias if it's correct [it annoys them].

    However, even having said that, I'm annoyed with all these groups, because none of them are addressing the real issues that need to be dealt with and calling each other names doesn't help.

    In my view, the first order of business is to blast the media and begin holding them accountable to actually do fact-checking and ensure that comments made by individuals [conservative or liberal] are validated and not simply repeated in some "school-yard" fantasy about fairness.  Accuracy should be paramount, and we shouldn't indulge people in presenting erroneous information in some perverse process of thinking we're being "fair".

    People also shouldn't be so quick to let others set the agenda regarding topics of concern.  There's nothing more annoying than watching someone vote against their own pocketbook simply to avoid appearing jealous of someone wealthier than them.  In my view, the wealthy are quite capable of taking care of themselves, and don't need any extra help from me.  Until such strange narratives are addressed, we will see this nation split wider and wider apart because it is the disunity that allows those in power to retain it.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Generally, speaking I agree with you. I'm not a partisan and I don't vote for Democrats. In fact, I don't vote for Democrats because I am a liberal. I'm an Independent and I support third parties. I also tend to ignore mainstream news. Still, it doesn't matter what your or my opinion is, whether we agree or disagree. The only thing that matters is the facts.

    http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33

    “The analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys (Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence significantly increases adult liberalism, atheism, and mens (but not womens) value on sexual exclusivity.”

    http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949

    “Most (62%) identify themselves as liberal… most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more)… Liberals are second only to Enterprisers in following news about government and public affairs most of the time (60%). Liberals’ use of the internet to get news is the highest among all groups (37%).”

    http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2009/04/25/conservatism-and-cognitive-a...

    ““Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated”. How’s that for a provocative opening sentence in an academic paper! Lazar Stankova of the National Institute of Education in Singapore reports this finding in a paper published earlier this year in the Elsevier journalIntelligence.

    ""Lazar Stankova, Conservatism and cognitive ability, Intelligence, v37, n3, pp. 294-304, May-June 2009."

    "I’ve only scanned the paper, but it looks like a serious study. Here’s the abstract:

    "“Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States’ universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.”"

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

    “General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions,” says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. “As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles.”

    "An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.

    "In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

    "Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa’s hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as “very liberal” have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as “very conservative” have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

    "Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans’ tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see “the hands of God” at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. “Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid,” says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. “So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists.”

    "Young adults who identify themselves as “not at all religious” have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as “very religious” have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

    "In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary history. Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were. In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women’s value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa’s analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well."

    http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/democrats_may_n.html

    "NIXON/FORD/CARTER YEARS

    "The 1970s were bad years for Republicans. Only 22.2% of respondents identified as Republican compared to 41.9% as Democratic. Although they were bad years for winning elections, they were good years for the Republican Party’s IQ. As respondents move into the more intellectually capable bracket, their likelihood to identify as Republican increases significantly.

    "REAGAN/BUSH SR. YEARS

    "The Reagan Revolution vastly increased the number of respondents who identified as Republican. This is the only time span in the analysis in which high IQ respondents are more likely to be Republican than Democratic. However, Reagan was even more successful attracting average IQ Americans to the Republican party, so overall the average IQ of the Republican Party decreased slightly.

    "CLINTON YEARS

    "Even though Clinton was in the White House, the Democratic Party continued to lose support. 34.9% of respondents identified as Democratic compared to 37.6% in the Reagan/Bush Sr. years and 41.9% in the 1970s.

    "But even though the Republicans gained overall compared to Democrats, among those in the high IQ bracket the story was the opposite; Republicans lost high IQ respondents to the Democrats. Once again, the average IQ of the Republican Party decreased compared to the previous period.

    "GEORGE W. BUSH YEARS

    "Unfortunately, there are only 1,419 respondents in this analysis, so the results aren’t as reliable. Nevertheless, we see a huge drop in the percent of high IQ respondents who identify as Republican and an even bigger increase in the percent of high IQ respondents who identify as Democratic.

    "At the same time, average IQ respondents flocked to the Republican Party, and now a greater percent of this bracket identifies as Republican than identifies as Democratic. (It should be noted that this is not the first time this occurs for a single year. It also happened in 1989, 1991, and 1993.)

    "CONCLUSION

    "Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was the party of the less intelligent and the Republican Party was the party of the more intelligent.

    "But today, the Democratic Party is the party of both the less intelligent and the more intelligent while the Republican Party is the party of the middle."

    Hank
    “The analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys (Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence significantly increases adult liberalism, atheism, and mens (but not womens) value on sexual exclusivity.”
    You are literally the only person in the world who cites Satoshi Kanazawa as a valid source.  This nonsense was okay (with left wing people) because it only evolutionary psychology'ed up the right.  When he used this same 'scientific rigor' to rationalize why black women were ugly, even the left had enough of him and he has been widely discredited.

    You don't seem to realize you are taking a cultural topology you want to believe and then finding data that matches it.   It's not science, it is instead the exact same method the partisans you claim not to be one of use to rationalize their political world views.
    Gerhard Adam
    "“Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States’ universities.
    Problem...

    That's not evidence, that's obvious bias.  Unless you also have a cross-sectional study across age groups and occupations, you've got nothing.  College students are probably the least reliable group to get a political reading from that there is and anyone that uses them to "study" politics is simply a fool.

    Anyone with a shred of credibility knows that you need to evaluate politics when people have a stake in the outcome, just as jobs, family, careers, etc.  You don't ask college students, who are largely living off of their parents, to discuss political beliefs.  

    Even the most flexible consideration of college students would have to acknowledge that they have no real world experience from which a viable political opinion would have formed.  They are literally "babes in the woods" and know next to nothing.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank
    Your "data" is just an excuse to spam us with your blog.  You don't seem us spamming your site over and over with jargon-based nonsense, do you?
    I gave a longer post to your previous comment that is waiting moderation. In that post, I offered links to data and analysis of the data. None of those links were of my own posts, but all of those links are found in various posts in my blog. That is what I often use my blog for. I post links to data and analysis of data for future reference. When it comes to issues of fact, I never just opinionate when I have facts available.

    So, my spamming you with my blog is my offering you facts. You can choose to ignore those facts, of course. But I'd rather have a discussion of facts, instead of your spamming the comments section with your opinions.

    Speaking of facts in my blog and analysis thereof, here is a blog post where I analyzed the issue of IQ (in the context of multiple intelligences):

    http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/re-education-researc...

    I find it amusing that I'm the only one around here offering data. Even the article above these comments wasn't based on any data. The article was just an opinion piece. When I offer data to disprove the opinion piece, you two just offer more opinions and not a single fact to counter any of the data I shared.. I didn't just cite Kanazawa. That is the point. I gave you tons of data.

    You've offered jack shit. You are a fucking joke. Do you feel ashamed every time you look in the mirror? I feel ashamed for you.

    If this is a science blog, don't you think you two should stick to scientific facts instead of opinions? I haven't yet seen you two discuss any scientific facts. What is a scientific blog without scientific facts?

    I could offer you many other research papers and other sources of data about IQ, but you would just dismiss it with more opinions. It's impossible to have an intelligent and rational discussion with you two. You seem afraid of facing simple facts. What exactly are you afraid of? If you actually had to deal with facts, would your world come crumbling down?