I didn't know about this deal until I read about it in the current issue of the National Review, but apparently David Amodio of NYU has done a study that proves conclusively that conservatives are stupid.

Here's how it worked: A group of 43 students were positioned in front of computer monitors, each monitor randomly flashing "M"s and "W"s. The students were instructed to give either a "go" or a "no go" signal, depending on which letters flashed. This test lasted for fifteen minutes.

At the conclusion of the test the results were compiled. Among the students who were judged most likely to make errors were seven students (the only seven in the group) who identified themselves as politically conservative.

From this, Amodio has determined that conservatives are stubborn and unable to adapt, whereas liberals "are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty."

Right.

Nevermind that my fifth grade son has put together science homework projects that are more thorough and exacting than this "experiment." Nevermind that the group was hopelessly skewed non-conservative (7 students? That's less than 15% of a group of 43). And forget that Amodio's conclusion is laughable when one considers the intellects of people like Thomas Sowell, William F. Buckley and Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

In fact, forget the whole preposterous "experiment" and it's silly presumptions. I'm more concerned with what this debacle says about the perspective of the modern American leftist. It sort of confirms for me a few beliefs I've had for some time. You might even call it … ahem … "scientific" confirmation.

It's been my experience for a while now that during any kind of debate, most of the conservatives I know attack the the other person's argument and most of the liberals I know attack the other person herself or himself. A conservative approach to an argument is something like "Your position is wrong and I can cite evidence to prove it." A liberal's approach is often something like "You dumb!"

Most of the liberals I know are simply bad at debating the issues. They can rarely cite hard data to support their beliefs, they don't usually do the research necessary to have an informed opinion, and they seldom regard historical evidence at all. If they did any of those things … well, they'd be conservatives, wouldn't they? ;)

In the face of well-thought-out arguments, lefties tend to rely on four methods of diversion:

• Bulverism
  
  C.S. Lewis coined this term, named for a fictional character who began every counter argument with the words "You only say that because…" In the absence of any facts to support their own claims, many lefties find it convenient to simply question the other person's motives and put that person's perspective in a box. Some examples of leftist Bulverism would include insulting attacks such as "Clarence Thomas is only a conservative because he's an Uncle Tom," and "Cheney only supports the war so he and his friends can get rich," and the ever popular "You only oppose illegal immigration because you're a racist."



• "Everybody Knows…"
  
  The conservatives I know can cite their sources and give evidence that supports their opinions. The leftists just cite "everybody." As in "Everybody knows that Bush lied," and Everybody knows that Christians are bigots," and my favorite, "Everybody knows that 9/11 was a government conspiracy." In the absence of hard evidence, just mark your opinion up to common knowledge. After all, everybody knows that everybody is always right. Right?



• Pie-In-The-Sky
  
  A lot of liberals, when cornered, have no shame about resorting to purely theoretical concepts to defend their positions. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard a leftist refute my thoroughly researched opinion with a statement that begins "Yes, but the world would be so much better if people would just…" My eyes glaze over. I sometimes respond "And it would also be a better world if I sneezed pure gold."
  
  And sometimes I don't say "sneezed."



• "You're Stupid."
  
  If you can discount a person outright, you don't have to acknowledge their argument at all, right? "You're stupid" is the liberal smart-bomb, a way of ending a debate without defending their position or refuting a better argument. It's the ultimate, perfect way to end an argument you've lost and convince yourself that you've saved face. And now, thanks to David Amodio at NYU, leftists can justify that ploy "with science."

And so, in short, David Amodio has contributed an asterisk to 2007-In-Review. He's clearly contributed nothing to science or the level of political discourse.

But then again, everybody knows that I only say that because I'm a stupid conservative … and wouldn't the world be better if I weren’t?

---

PS - Thanks to One Of Them for the heads-up on my perpetual misspelling of "cite." I've fixed it. I don't know why I am programmed to type that word incorrectly every time, but I am. Maybe I am just dumb. ;)

Labels: News, Politics