ISIS...Islamic State Victims

[icebreaker]

Spain withdrew from the coalition directly as a result of the Madrid train bombings which occurred three days before the general election. I remember it well.
Aznar's PP was well ahead in the polls; then the bombings happened and there was an enormous swing to the Socialists who had promised in their election manifesto to pull out of the war. Any Milgram-style social psychology analysis of a Right-Left narrative is totally irrelevant in this incidence. The bombings were the prime catalyst for Spain's withdrawal from the coalition.

Re: France, it is hard to dispute that the socialist government there is the most proactive in western Europe in maintaining a coercive and restrictive attitude towards its muslim citizenry.


I had to google Milgram -- had never previously heard of the bloke.
What I read makes me believe the whole thing is a nonsense, -- i.e., the Left = Big Brain; the Right = Small Brain. I don't buy any of it. I wouldn't give it a milligram of credence! With respect I think then that your development of the idea -- Labour voter = Big Brain; Tory voter = Small Brain is taking the p1ss completely. You are, aren't you?

 

[Warbler]

Spain withdrew from the coalition directly as a result of the Madrid train bombings which occurred three days before the general election. I remember it well.
Aznar's PP was well ahead in the polls; then the bombings happened and there was an enormous swing to the Socialists who had promised in their election manifesto to pull out of the war. Any Milgram-style social psychology analysis of a Right-Left narrative is totally irrelevant in this incidence. The bombings were the prime catalyst for Spain's withdrawal from the coalition.

Don't think that's completely correct.

Both parties had positions regarding participation in Iraq before the Madrid bombings. That much is true, and that much we can agree. The bombings themselves had no impact on those positions in so far as no party adopted a position based on them. What they did impact was the way people voted.

My recollection of what was decisive in the vote wasn't the actual bombing though, but the way in which Aznar tried to blame it on ETA for a few days and refused to accept it was anything to do with his foreign policy. He basically tried to lie up to the polls but got found out. It created the impression of someone who didn't know what was going on at best, or someone who was being deliberately deceitful at worst. That was what did for him. The socialists didn't adopt an opportunistic position as a result of the bombings. Their commitment to withdraw was there beforehand. Aznar cut his own throat by lying. With the lie now exposed the comforming link with authority was broken. Having said that, in a strongly conforming environment, people can still tell lies and get away with them if the responding group have been sufficiently prepared to accept whatever they're fed

 

[Warbler]

I had to google Milgram -- had never previously heard of the bloke.
What I read makes me believe the whole thing is a nonsense, -- i.e., the Left = Big Brain; the Right = Small Brain. I don't buy any of it. I wouldn't give it a milligram of credence! With respect I think then that your development of the idea -- Labour voter = Big Brain; Tory voter = Small Brain is taking the p1ss completely. You are, aren't you?

I think you're misreading things.

There's two studies being referenced simultaneously. The big brain / small brain one was conducted by an American university and involved Democrats and Republicans in the control group. It broadly discovered that Republicans had a greater propensity to seek out simplicity and adopt simple solutions rather than engage with complexity. When faced with challenging situations they would be more persuaded by primative behaviours that would advocate destorying something as their solution, or establishing a controlling supremacy over it.

There are overlaps between the two though

Milgram is about conforming with authority. He conducted about 80 experiments I think, albeit there have been hundreds of Milgram experiments conducted by other people against loads of different variables. One of the conclusions is that left leaning people either refused to participate or withdrew in greater numbers than right leaning individuals. More right leaning individuals saw it through to the full duration too. Milgrams have been done by age, geography, occupation, ethnicity, religion etc but the experiment was eventually outlawed in the UK I believe as unethical (even though you occasionally hear of being conducted as there are those who think it's an excellent way of testing what it was originally designed to test). What was remarkable was the sheer volume of people who were prepared to conform up to full duration. Expectation was that it would only be a sadistic fringe, or the feeble minded, but that transpired not to be the case.

One of the limiting factors of real world politics that Milgram makes no concession to of course is coersion. Milgram repsonders are all exposed to identical environments be they the personnel, the surroundings, the scripts used etc In real world politics we can see domineering countries/ people threaten and affect the behaviour of subjected countries/ people. Milgram can't permit this in the name of objectivity, so you're always going to see departures from expectation on top of those which you'd expect to see in and beyond normal distribution

The Milgram director issues the same instruction to each responder each time without deviation or explanation. In real world politics this doesn't happen. For instance. If America wanted South Africa to support the overthrow of Gadaffi. They don't sit there in a white lab coat and repeat three times "administer the next shock". Instead they remind them what happened to the value of the rand the last time they defied a request for naval bases, and then ask them to administer the next shock. The consequence is that the ANC end up supporting the US against a regime that was a significant one time funder and supplier of them during their own struggle

 

[Warbler]

Re: France, it is hard to dispute that the socialist government there is the most proactive in western Europe in maintaining a coercive and restrictive attitude towards its muslim citizenry.

I think it is maintaining. Many of the more aggressive/provocative (call it what you will, I'm not bothered) were introduced by Sarkozy. You could of course argue (probably successfully imo) that he was responding to the emerging popularity of the NF which all parties need to consider there.

Might we see a conforming behaviour in the UK concerning UKIP? Perhaps not yet, but I don't think it'll take long

 

[Warbler]

Thinking about it (IIRC) the most commonly asked question by a Milgram responder as they could hear the progressively louder screams of the other participant (actor in case anyone was really in doubt) was that they sought assurances that they were immune from any action resulting. This was explained to them at the outset, and they signed a waiver etc. The Milgram instructor never offered them any such assurances once the experiment had begun, but merely repeated the instruction to apply the next voltage level up to three times. One of the things that they also concluded was that people were much more prepared to continue conforming once they were satisfied they'd be no consequences for them doing so. That's quite a worrying finding too. Action without consequence etc

I think it's quite a good experiment at one level, and it won a lot of critical acclaim (as well as generating controversy). A lot of the findings were quite disturbing though, and this certainly led to many seeking to question its validity, as some of the explanations they'd be forced into having to address otherwise would have been distinctly uncomfortable

Think about it logically though

You're briefly introduced to someone, and you're both assigned a number
You draw lots (rigged) for who would perform a task
A pretext for the experiment is explained to you both, then the detail, and you probably feel slightly relieved now to learn that you've won the job of electricutioner
You start to adminsiter volts and can hear the screams of the other person

Now logically do you not start to feel uncomfortable with this at some point? Do you not start thinking you're part of some whacky nut job game with a mad professor?

Do you continue? or do you say I'm not doing this any longer?

The only thing that is maintaining your engagement is an authoritarian figure giving you orders (this is what they're testing) and the comfort that whatever the outcome, and however much suffering you administer, you're safe from reprucussions (same crude conditions as the nazi prison guard - which is what they're specifically testing). How far will people go under these conditions, and what percentage of them will do so?

Only when the experiment is over by termination or full duration, are your personal characteristics then fed into the results. It was at this point that various patterns started to emerge about who was the more likely to dissent and who was the most likely to comply.

If you take the view that good old-fashioned sadists are numerically thin on the ground (in most societies), the only real reasons left for maintaining engagement revolve around your relationship with the authority figure. In this case its a scientist (well they could hardly dress someone up in full waffen SS gear and expect the subjects not to notice, or at least suspect something!)

Now role this forward as I keep saying

The experiment isn't about right wing people having a greater propencity to administer pain and conform. That was just one of many things that came out of it (albeit I've heard so many findings attributed to Milgram experiments now I'm not sure which ones were the original ones and which are just dark propaganda now). The experiment was really about trying to understand how a peoples (Germans in this case) could follow orders knowing that what they were doing was causing suffering. What percentage of humans would be capable of doing this blindly if ordered to do so by way of instructed authority

The labels and analysis came later. What I think happened (and contrary to popular conception) is that right wing thinkers wanted order in their society and that meant obeying instruction. Left wing people were more inclined to question what they were being told and ultimately dissent from the instruction. This is why I drew the paralell with the decision to go to war in Iraq when the reasons that were fed to us by the authority figure (our governments in this case) were so clearly flakey (even to the point where Colin Powell was reduced to using an artists impression of what a mobile germ warfare laboratory would look like if ever they could find one to prove it existed!!!)

Let me try again as I'm not explaining this that well

You didn't have right and left. What you had was conformers and non-conformers, with authority being the constant factor applied to both. It is this demarcation that defines society. However, our society evolved along a political model and then applied right and left labels, which could then be used to identify conformers and non-conformers respectively. These labels only seek to confuse. If you look at Islamic societies where the concept of right and left is no where near as well embeded, then conformers and non-conformers are much more visible. Now once we start to get a handle on this dynamic, and understand how millions of people can be moved to conform with authoritarian instruction, we start to get a handle on some of what we're facing

 

[clivex]

I don't accept Clive's explanation as regards his reasons for going to Iraq though. As I recall at the time, he was very happy parrotting Tony Blair and George Bush lines. He didn't show any independent thought or critical faculties. He never once raised any cautionary notes about a lack of exit strategy (that only came much later when he realised what an almighty mess had been created). In other words, all his of reasons were classic symptoms of conformity with authority

Thats rubbish

 

[clivex]

Left wing people were more inclined to question what they were being told and ultimately dissent from the instruction.

this is laughable.
given that you have cited business people as examples of right wing, you could not find a better example of those that question and create as opposed to lumpen public sector drones that populate the left

and thats before we get onto the big government left wing societies. cuba, east germany...all paragons of free thinking and questioning

 

[clivex]

I had to google Milgram -- had never previously heard of the bloke.
What I read makes me believe the whole thing is a nonsense, -- i.e., the Left = Big Brain; the Right = Small Brain. I don't buy any of it. I wouldn't give it a milligram of credence! With respect I think then that your development of the idea -- Labour voter = Big Brain; Tory voter = Small Brain is taking the p1ss completely. You are, aren't you?

i think so. a better guide would be relative earnings which are of course linked to ability

 

[clivex]

I'm more inclined to ask what they've done, other than vote to attack Syria? something which they haven't though after the American democrats declined to join and the UK conservatives cocked up the vote with Labour changing sides. A vast majority of France's more virulent moves came under Sarkozy. Personally I've got a theory that they were stung by the anti-French sentiment that gripped America

poor stuff

Mali

I certainly think the last line is a nonsense. The idea that france would respond to that is pretty ludicrous

As for Spain, bin laden had declared them a target well before any involvement in the middle east.

 

[icebreaker]

Deleted.
Sorry, wrong thread.

 

[icebreaker]

My recollection of what was decisive in the vote wasn't the actual bombing though,

Of course it was !
3 days after 190 people were killed and a multiple of that injured, the Spanish people went to the polls. Of course they swung to a party which had committed to withdrawing from the coalition. The bombings succeeded in driving government change in Spain and consequentlyin taking Spain out of the war.

 

[icebreaker]

I believe that a conforming attitude is as much down to environment and personal economic circumstances as it is to any Left- or Right-Wing predisposition.
Children from poorer and disadvantaged backrounds are more disposed to be "bold" children and not doing what they are told rather than children of the rich and middle class. Same with similar teenagers; they are more likely to respond to violent instructions and directives than the teenagers from wealthier backgrounds secure in their economic comfort zone. What must be the best example of "conforming" to the prevaling group-think -- L.A. street gangs -- amply demonstrates that the recruiting grounds for conforming "soldja's" who are prepared to inflict pain and hurt is not the leafy mansions of Beverly Hills but the mean streets of somewhere like Compton. The Nazi Party -- another authoritarian org -- recruited its rank-and-file from the poor and dispossessed rather than from academia and the professions. The willing executioners in the death camps came from the working class and the bourgeoisie in the main rather than professors or bankers.

Nah, can't be having with the Mlgram crackpot theories at all. Soz.

 

[Warbler]

Left wing people were more inclined to question what they were being told and ultimately dissent from the instruction.

this is laughable.
given that you have cited business people as examples of right wing, you could not find a better example of those that question and create as opposed to lumpen public sector drones that populate the left

and thats before we get onto the big government left wing societies. cuba, east germany...all paragons of free thinking and questioning

I think you're getting confused Clive.

There are two things being referenced here simultaneously. You're mixing the them up. I don't know if Milgram ever tested business people (I'd have expected that someone would have conducted a Milgram exercise between business managers and workers to be honest, but I haven't seen one explicitly laid out). The example of business people was introduced in an earlier study that suggested that the right wing brain was more receptive to simple solutions rather than engaging complexity. It was a different survey.

It's similar to your own in Iraq

Saddam = I don't like, because he's a threat to me and everyone
I don't like = I want to destory = problem solved
(don't think the consequences through properly)
Tony Blair says he's a threat too = I conform (even if Tony's reasons are clear crock of shite)

 

[Warbler]

I believe that a conforming attitude is as much down to environment and personal economic circumstances as it is to any Left- or Right-Wing predisposition.
Children from poorer and disadvantaged backrounds are more disposed to be "bold" children and not doing what they are told rather than children of the rich and middle class. Same with similar teenagers; they are more likely to respond to violent instructions and directives than the teenagers from wealthier backgrounds secure in their economic comfort zone. What must be the best example of "conforming" to the prevaling group-think -- L.A. street gangs -- amply demonstrates that the recruiting grounds for conforming "soldja's" who are prepared to inflict pain and hurt is not the leafy mansions of Beverly Hills but the mean streets of somewhere like Compton. The Nazi Party -- another authoritarian org -- recruited its rank-and-file from the poor and dispossessed rather than from academia and the professions. The willing executioners in the death camps came from the working class and the bourgeoisie in the main rather than professors or bankers.

Nah, can't be having with the Mlgram crackpot theories at all. Soz.

There were lots of Milgram variants done, and as I said, when you're dealing with data like this you get a scatter plot. One of the biggest conforming groups I've seen reported were nurses for example. This is mildly interesting given that their profession involves administering care, but they were quite prepared to administer 450 volts of electricity to people if someone in a white coat told them to do so (I should say that these were American nurses rather than NHS nuses! - private sector you see)

The critical thing about Milgram is that it was designed to remove as many extraneous influences as possible. Despite it having it's roots in nazism there is a gap here. People could comply with nazism out of fear for not doing, and similarly, people could comply out of conviction of belief.

By contrast Milgram couldn't shoot people for not following an order, and neither could the experiment build up a loyalty amongst its participants. It was cold in that respect. The first time people encountered it, was at the point of delivery, so it wouldn't be like a political philosophy they were being instructed to act in support of. Many of the crueller nazis could by contrast be hand picked, groomed, and coerced into behaviours because they agree with them. It was the plea of "I voz only zeebeying orders" that they were trying to test. If someone was a fanatic however, they wouldn't need to obey orders under duress

Outside of perverse sadism therefore, the only thing left in the pot for conforming with a Milgram instruction is respect for authority. This authority was controlled in what it was allowed to instruct by set script. It wasn't allowed to coerce with threats or encourage with temptation. The primary reason left on the table therefore for conforming with Milgram has to be some kind of obedience behaviour.

As I've said, the most common question asked by Milgram subjects as they started to develop doubts about what they were doing, didn't relate to the safety of what they were doing, but instead related to seeking assurances at the half way stage that they were immune from any consequences resulting from the action.

The left wing - right wing correlation wasn't one of the strongest correlations (IIRC) but it existed. The problem with this now is that so many Milgram's were subsequently conducted by non-Milgram personnel that it becomes very difficult to keep track of.

I think it's dangerous to extrapolate however that all people from a certain background are bracketed left or right. There will be plenty of violent right leaning conformers in poor backgrounds. This is what Milgram is basically saying. The application of the political label first doesn't help our understanding. The first thing they're looking at is the propencity to conform with instruction irrespective of anything else. Only when they have established this, do they then start to layer the experiement by introducing secondary data, one of which might be political spectrum

I'd have expected certain societies to conform for example (I can't believe given that it was an American experiment that Japan wasn't tested) but I'd expect them to be obedient. The initial experiments concentrated on universities, and found that there was strong dissent amongst the more academic, and that this altered between states. I'd also expect people who fallen under the influence of doctrinal religion to be strong conformers (I'm assured by someone who knows a hell of lot more Milgram than me, that this happened, but the results were too embarrassing for publication)

 

[clivex]

I think you're getting confused Clive.

There are two things being referenced here simultaneously. You're mixing the them up. I don't know if Milgram ever tested business people (I'd have expected that someone would have conducted a Milgram exercise between business managers and workers to be honest, but I haven't seen one explicitly laid out). The example of business people was introduced in an earlier study that suggested that the right wing brain was more receptive to simple solutions rather than engaging complexity. It was a different survey.

It's similar to your own in Iraq

Saddam = I don't like, because he's a threat to me and everyone
I don't like = I want to destory = problem solved
(don't think the consequences through properly)
Tony Blair says he's a threat too = I conform (even if Tony's reasons are clear crock of shite)

No im not. This is supposedly proof that left wing voters are more intelligent than right wing

Demographics emphatically paint the opposite picture. Not some hair brained limited test in a university (probably with a pre conceived result in mind)

 

[Warbler]

Well I was more than suspicious about the first survey given that it was published about 1 month before the last US election. Having said that, you still need to get a piece of academic work approved before publication through peer review panels in order to be cited. It's not like internet publishing where anyone can lob anything out there, and call it a survey. I'd be very surprised if the body of the work actually concluded quite so crudely as the media presented it, for if it had done, it's unlikely to have been cleared for publication. The panels that assess these things are normally very, very, precious about the methodology involved Clive. If that falls into question then their whole credibility can be shattered at a stroke. The panels who review academic papers aren't stupid. They'd be alert to any possible preconceived agenda, and especially one that's covering this kind of material (it's not exactly difficult ot spot is it?). The sub plot that was reported in the media however is much more open to subjective interpretation. Media reporting isn't held to anything like the same standard of scientific objectivity as academic research (despite your slur). It was here that it was suggested that Democrats engage with complexity because they're cleverer than Republicans who repsond instead to a more primative code of behaviours based on like / dislike, embrace or attack. Equally it was here that it said that Republicans were more successful in business because of their clarity of focus (which carried an insinuation of not being able to deal with complexity and engaging task to finish rationale instead)

Milgram is of course a totally seperate study (not least of all by about 50 years) but there are areas of overlap concerning conformity, albeit that's all they were testing. It was only with the results of engagement known that they started to layer over variables. FWIW, I'd have expected business people if defined to be enterpreneurs and SME owners to be dissenters. If business people are defined as corporate cogs in wheels however, then they could easily be conformers. I know there were some very embarrassing results generated in the area of religion though

It just reminded me of you though, and the way you were excitedly bouncing up and down on your horse and blowing your bugle in 2003 as captain Tony Blair led you off to fight the Sioux. I don't recall you registering a single concern about the legitimacy of what you were being sold, the morality, strategic rationale, or lack of planning at the time. You couldn't get there quick enough. It was a conforming behaviour. Were you not just a little bit suspicious when the American's were challenged to put up their evidence and they could manage nothing better than artists impressions and a roof being put back on a fcatory from 1991? They seriously presented this as a fair accompli at the UN. A dissenter would have seen this as final confirmation that we were being fed a false instruction. A conformer would have lapped it up and said off to war and last one back is a cissy

As I've said before, the most amusing justification for Iraq was that given by George W Bush, who without any sense of irony, said that "They might not have been there before, but they sure as hell are now". He was of course offering this observation to justify his invasion. He only said it once. I'm sure it was pointed out to him that perhaps this wasn't the greatest line of defence he could use

 

[Warbler]

I certainly think the last line is a nonsense. The idea that france would respond to that is pretty ludicrous

The French lost a lot of ground from 2003 onwards through their failure to support the American's and their emergence as the unofficial global spokesman for the opposition. The American's called them "old Europe" at senior diplomatic level, quite apart from silly stunts like banning 'French fries' and calling them 'freedom fries'. Their pain was doubled by the fact that the UK inherited favour at their expense. You only need to look at the tourism figures for American visits to Europe by destination to see how the US responded

If you don't think the French were stung by this, try explaining why when they voted to attack Syria and the UK voted against it, they publicly reaffirmed their commitment in the immediate aftermath of the British vote by openly describing themselves at Presidential level as "America's oldest ally in Europe". They saw an opportunity to get into bed with the US at the UK's expense and repair some of the damage. Somewhat embarrassingly for France of course America also declined to lead a military campaign a week later. The French still had their vote on the table though and could have acted unilaterally if they were really that opposed to Assad. They didn't though did they? They pretty well calculated that if the American's weren't there, then there was no point them being as the vote no longer had any purpose. It was always about trying to ingratiate themselves with the US rather than taking any stand against Syria

In fact you don't need to try interpreting diplomatic moves nuance. Just look at the wikicables leaks

 

[clivex]

No they didnt. Of all countries, France is the least likely to "cosy up" to the americans.

hasnt occured to you that they considered attacking assad to be the right thing to do reagrdless of what the americans think?

 

[clivex]

Well I was more than suspicious about the first survey given that it was published about 1 month before the last US election. Having said that, you still need to get a piece of academic work approved before publication through peer review panels in order to be cited. It's not like internet publishing where anyone can lob anything out there, and call it a survey. I'd be very surprised if the body of the work actually concluded quite so crudely as the media presented it, for if it had done, it's unlikely to have been cleared for publication. The panels that assess these things are normally very, very, precious about the methodology involved Clive. If that falls into question then their whole credibility can be shattered at a stroke. The panels who review academic papers aren't stupid. They'd be alert to any possible preconceived agenda, and especially one that's covering this kind of material (it's not exactly difficult ot spot is it?). The sub plot that was reported in the media however is much more open to subjective interpretation. Media reporting isn't held to anything like the same standard of scientific objectivity as academic research (despite your slur). It was here that it was suggested that Democrats engage with complexity because they're cleverer than Republicans who repsond instead to a more primative code of behaviours based on like / dislike, embrace or attack. Equally it was here that it said that Republicans were more successful in business because of their clarity of focus (which carried an insinuation of not being able to deal with complexity and engaging task to finish rationale instead)

Milgram is of course a totally seperate study (not least of all by about 50 years) but there are areas of overlap concerning conformity, albeit that's all they were testing. It was only with the results of engagement known that they started to layer over variables. FWIW, I'd have expected business people if defined to be enterpreneurs and SME owners to be dissenters. If business people are defined as corporate cogs in wheels however, then they could easily be conformers. I know there were some very embarrassing results generated in the area of religion though

It just reminded me of you though, and the way you were excitedly bouncing up and down on your horse and blowing your bugle in 2003 as captain Tony Blair led you off to fight the Sioux. I don't recall you registering a single concern about the legitimacy of what you were being sold, the morality, strategic rationale, or lack of planning at the time. You couldn't get there quick enough. It was a conforming behaviour. Were you not just a little bit suspicious when the American's were challenged to put up their evidence and they could manage nothing better than artists impressions and a roof being put back on a fcatory from 1991? They seriously presented this as a fair accompli at the UN. A dissenter would have seen this as final confirmation that we were being fed a false instruction. A conformer would have lapped it up and said off to war and last one back is a cissy

As I've said before, the most amusing justification for Iraq was that given by George W Bush, who without any sense of irony, said that "They might not have been there before, but they sure as hell are now". He was of course offering this observation to justify his invasion. He only said it once. I'm sure it was pointed out to him that perhaps this wasn't the greatest line of defence he could use

Frankly it is all sounding a bit desperate now isnt it?

You state that right wing voters are less inteliigent than left wing. ok

lets try again. Lets look at a strong tory seat. Esher say? Do i need to go on.... would you like to see the average earnings, iqs and qualifications for that seat

now lets look at Oldham say...

shall we just cap it there before it gets a bit embarrassing?

It would be very easy to make a very strong case indeed that left wing voters are less qualified, less able and less intelligent than those on the right. in fact you wouldnt have to make the case. Its perfectly clear on every demographic

 

[Warbler]

No they didnt. Of all countries, France is the least likely to "cosy up" to the americans.

hasnt occured to you that they considered attacking assad to be the right thing to do reagrdless of what the americans think?

Yes they did!!!! That's what they actually said Clive. Read the wikicables and you'll discover how rattled they were really about their loss of influence.

As regards attacking Syria because it was the right thing to do, well there's nothing stopping them was there? They had parliamentary approval to do it, so why didn't they?

 

[Warbler]

Frankly it is all sounding a bit desperate now isnt it?

You state that right wing voters are less inteliigent than left wing. ok

lets try again. Lets look at a strong tory seat. Esher say? Do i need to go on.... would you like to see the average earnings, iqs and qualifications for that seat

now lets look at Oldham say...

shall we just cap it there before it gets a bit embarrassing?

It would be very easy to make a very strong case indeed that left wing voters are less qualified, less able and less intelligent than those on the right. in fact you wouldnt have to make the case. Its perfectly clear on every demographic

Tell me Clive, do conservatives have difficulty reading and remembering things? I think I said that the study was conducted between Republicans and Democrats. Go back to the original post where I questioned the legitimacy of that at the start. The study never even took place in the UK, but if you can produce data for the population demarcated by IQ overlaid against parliamentary constituency I would be interested in seeing it as I very much doubt it's surveyed and collected

IQ tests are quite specific and conducted under a controlled set of circumstances. It's possible that a university has done a small research sample somewhere? but I doubt very much the UK government has an agency continually surveying IQ's against parliamentary boundaries and then putting the data in the ONS website.

 

[EC1]

would you like to see the average earnings,

using earnings as a way of measuring intelligence would make footballers mensa level then?

earnings as a measure of intelligence isn't the best way tbh is it?

My experience with lots of self employed "earners" is they work for themselves as a way of not working for someone else..but they are crap at running business and many get in messes with tax etc due to lack of unce..always got a wad of cash...due to not paying their dues and demands. Money is no measure of brainpower imo.

 

[clivex]

would you like to see the average earnings,

using earnings as a way of measuring intelligence would make footballers mensa level then?

earnings as a measure of intelligence isn't the best way tbh is it?

My experience with lots of self employed "earners" is they work for themselves as a way of not working for someone else..but they are crap at running business and many get in messes with tax etc due to lack of unce..always got a wad of cash...due to not paying their dues and demands. Money is no measure of brainpower imo.

of course it is. We live in a society where mental ability and education is valued as never before. Does that really have to be stated?

there is ABSOLUTELY no better indicator. Of course footballers are an exception as are some other trades and there will be overpaid under talented people as well as bright underachievers, but as a rule of thumb it is a close as you will ever find. this is a perfect indicator. footballers are what % of the electorate?

You could very quickly drill down to university degrees per head and plenty of other indicators of intelligence and ability.

i hope it offends most here of course

but most of all it batters to pieces that warped and clearly nonsensical "research"

 

[EC1]

i prefer the research..seems more in depth

 

[clivex]

Strangely enough, the study (and i can't for the life of me remember who was behind it now other than an American university) concluded the opposite to you, in that democrats/ left wingers tended to enter the public services because they could handle multiple complexity with all sorts of potential outcome scenarios better than Republicans/ right wingers, who were more single goal focused and task driven.

that is too funny.

but frankly unbeleivable too

I think most in any arena would acknowledge that you DO NOT go into the public sector if you wish to be creative or deal with "complex outcomes". That is a complete no no.