# Correlation between intelligence, religious belief, and authoritarianism.



## ambush80 (Nov 2, 2018)

This was an interesting interview:

https://heterodoxacademy.org/podcast-hhh-36-julie-wronski/


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 2, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> This was an interesting interview:
> 
> https://heterodoxacademy.org/podcast-hhh-36-julie-wronski/



So, I first want to say that this is, for reasons I choose not to avoid, a Hit and Run post.  So, if you choose to ignore it, I will understand and this will, hopefully, notify others why you did.  I can also delete it if you prefer; just send me a PM.

So, how is a discussion of the Sociopsychological demographics, relative to authoritarianism, of the Democrat Party, viewed from a Political Science perspective, relevant to the AAA.  I noticed only minimum reference to religion, which I assume the host felt obligated to introduce as a nod to the title, “heterodoxacademy”; and that not extending beyond the observation that religious people tend to score higher on “authoritarian” in a psychological profile — which sounds like a no-brainer to me.

So, how is it that the word “intelligence” appears in the thread title and I didn’t hear the word, or any synonym of the word, in the entire “interview”.  Obviously, I could have missed it.

So, I must have missed something and thought others might benefit (tie things together better) from my questions.

So, lastly, if you have occasion to listen to the interview again, you would do me a service if you tabulated, and posted, the number of statements the interviewee began with the word “So”, how many statements she made that did not begin with the word “So”, and how many times she chose to use “so” as a conjunction within her statement. I do not mean this personal concern of mine to reflect on the content of her statements in any way.  It just bugs the **** out of me.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 2, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> So, I first want to say that this is, for reasons I choose not to avoid, a Hit and Run post.  So, if you choose to ignore it, I will understand and this will, hopefully, notify others why you did.  I can also delete it if you prefer; just send me a PM.
> 
> So, how is a discussion of the Sociopsychological demographics, relative to authoritarianism, of the Democrat Party, viewed from a Political Science perspective, relevant to the AAA.  I noticed only minimum reference to religion, which I assume the host felt obligated to introduce as a nod to the title, “heterodoxacademy”; and that not extending beyond the observation that religious people tend to score higher on “authoritarian” in a psychological profile — which sounds like a no-brainer to me.



As usual, I posted this to start a discussion.  In so much as it's possible to form a "profile" of what people's tendencies are based on traits, I thought this interview was interesting.  I think it's useful to understand why people think and feel the way they do about certain things.  It supports for empathy and repels vilification. 



hummerpoo said:


> So, how is it that the word “intelligence” appears in the thread title and I didn’t hear the word, or any synonym of the word, in the entire “interview”.  Obviously, I could have missed it.
> 
> So, I must have missed something and thought others might benefit (tie things together better) from my questions.



I'll listen to it again.  I think they said it in the last third.  But there's this:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...e-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent

This should be looked at as dispassionately and objectively as a study of intelligence based on race, class, or geographic location.  I find it troubling that certain subjects are taboo.



hummerpoo said:


> So, lastly, if you have occasion to listen to the interview again, you would do me a service if you tabulated, and posted, the number of statements the interviewee began with the word “So”, how many statements she made that did not begin with the word “So”, and how many times she chose to use “so” as a conjunction within her statement. I do not mean this personal concern of mine to reflect on the content of her statements in any way.  It just bugs the **** out of me.



I have recently taken up an aversion to people who make a staement then say "Right?'.  I hear it allot these days.  That's my pet peeve.  As to yours I offer:

https://www.npr.org/2015/09/03/432732859/so-whats-the-big-deal-with-starting-a-sentence-with-so


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 2, 2018)

I wanted to discuss "Authoritarianism".  Why is it useful or deleterious ?


----------



## Israel (Nov 2, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> So, I first want to say that this is, for reasons I choose not to avoid, a Hit and Run post.  So, if you choose to ignore it, I will understand and this will, hopefully, notify others why you did.  I can also delete it if you prefer; just send me a PM.
> 
> So, how is a discussion of the Sociopsychological demographics, relative to authoritarianism, of the Democrat Party, viewed from a Political Science perspective, relevant to the AAA.  I noticed only minimum reference to religion, which I assume the host felt obligated to introduce as a nod to the title, “heterodoxacademy”; and that not extending beyond the observation that religious people tend to score higher on “authoritarian” in a psychological profile — which sounds like a no-brainer to me.
> 
> ...





So, I saw what you did there, bro. 
Right?


(But I didn't see no stinkin' gorilla)


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 2, 2018)

Israel said:


> So, I saw what you did there, bro.
> Right?
> 
> 
> (But I didn't see no stinkin' gorilla)



a bit more fun is watching the Cathy Newman's interview with Jordan Peterson.  "So what you're saying is".  If you're not familiar with it here it is.  Enjoy:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 2, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> a bit more fun is watching the Cathy Newman's interview with Jordan Peterson.  "So what you're saying is".  If you're not familiar with it here it is.  Enjoy:


Thanks Ambush, I enjoyed that.


----------



## Israel (Nov 3, 2018)

Yeah...Ambush, I remember that.

I just caught a condensation of a thing called the Munk Debates on Political Correctness with JBP, Fry and a fellow named Dyson....and some other. It brought me to consider a short essay on the benefits of a return to dueling.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The whole of it is also on YT...


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 3, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I wanted to discuss "Authoritarianism".  Why is it useful or deleterious ?


Can you provide an instance where authoritarianism is deleterious but not useful?


----------



## Israel (Nov 3, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> a bit more fun is watching the Cathy Newman's interview with Jordan Peterson.  "So what you're saying is".  If you're not familiar with it here it is.  Enjoy:
> 
> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> ...




LOL...I'm sitting here replaying this and my wife is like "Why is he even talking to her?" as she is sitting at her computer.

For me it's an interesting observation. Cause my wife has a very healthy view of men condensed usually to no more than this: "Men are dogs".
But she also remains no less aware of how a woman, or women, can (and often do) easily play a part in encouraging this. She is no less _kind_ in her appraisal of women who play to the dog.

She's far more inclined, if and when I tell her "I love you" to ask "why?" than she is to respond with a peck and say "I love you too".

I have deepest sympathy for men who don't know, or have a woman like this. Or worst still, would imagine they are "better off" not having one such as this. High and tight is how they wear their britches. And...it's painfully obvious.

Now, the_ knowing of this_, in particular, and its being remarkably obvious can easily cause a man to be offensive in the "men's club". Where men like to appear and parade as _all that_ but it's very plain their stones are already in a vise grip.

I have no doubt _whatsoever _this will be read to a nodding understanding...or offense. And that the one who pretends _to not understand..._is indeed the pretender.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 3, 2018)

Israel said:


> Yeah...Ambush, I remember that.
> 
> I just caught a condensation of a thing called the Munk Debates on Political Correctness with JBP, Fry and a fellow named Dyson....and some other. It brought me to consider a short essay on the benefits of a return to dueling.
> 
> ...



Poor Dyson......

I would like to see the people who applauded anything he said.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 3, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Can you provide an instance where authoritarianism is deleterious but not useful?



I suppose when it's inforcing a bad idea.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 3, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I suppose when it's inforcing a bad idea.


That would produce results and the results would serve as examples.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 3, 2018)

Israel said:


> She's far more inclined, if and when I tell her "I love you" to ask "why?" than she is to respond with a peck and say "I love you too".


I broke mine from asking "why?" by diving into the metaphysical. She now responds with a simple "thanks".

Now I miss the "why?".


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> I broke mine from asking "why?" by diving into the metaphysical. She now responds with a simple "thanks".
> 
> Now I miss the "why?".



LOL...

The accusation that would cloak itself into an observation to appear benign, but yet carry the poison pill of guilt and/or shame is a subtlety not to be lost on a discerning man. Just as likewise is the poison pill of flattery, inserted into form of observation.
If a man can be flattered he can no less be manipulated to shame by its withholding, no differently than the man subject to guilt and shame can be manipulated to try and then "win" a compliment.

I know I speak of the most basic stuff. Even this forum now has provision for "like" button; and the same question "why?"...in not unlike manner to my own wife's "why?", presents itself when I consider _using it. _Am I seeking, what is _to me_, the use of a _useful_ flattery? An _apparently_ beneficial encouragement? Or is it just a form of gift that allows me, as gift to me, _a participation in recognition_?

In simpler terms might a man discover that what he thinks he gives...(be it recognition in agreement, encouragement, or whatever _he believes is motive_ in response) in gift, or as gift...is found to not really be an allowance to his presumption of ability to gifting, but _the gift to him_...to respond? A gift specifically _to him_ that allows him to declare his being?
Response.

That turning from responsibility to response-ability is so easily perceived as entrance into all irresponsibility. But this accusation flies so willy nilly, couched (as it were) in a million subtleties (where_ reason_ lies...who is being "responsible" to it, who is not...) who is "liked" in response...who is not...that any and every man may find himself at times quite...spun. Inclined one way...but then another, inclined toward this, yet also toward...that. Averse to this in one, but also averse to that...in another.

Turning at every arrow to find source of cover from which it was let flown.

The notion of "sides" becomes perplexing, for the "thing" I have used for strength of division, and leaned upon, I find bowing now, succumbing to usage, losing strength...as every _thing_...must...in the using. It is not rocket science, once the weakening is discerned, to know its failure now is demonstrably sure, and made plain as "thing". The perishing in the using...someone said.

And I really have no idea at all if it is a flattery to agree or not. I do not know if assertion is no less, just a self flattery. And even whether assertion of agreement, in seeking (somehow) to take the subordinate place is no less a form of flattery. But flattery...as thing...fails. I do not, _of myself,_ know what ultimately may be wrung from any man _as truth. _What _I sense to myself_ has led to so many expositions of "thing-hood" in, and by such overwhelming presumption only...that a thing such as myself...cannot but marvel in allowance of continued expression. What could possibly...bear...me?
Yes. And..."why?"

Ambush. What we both found "funny" in your question about the odds of "going to Heaven" you were sure were for different_ reasons._
I can only tell what _I find_ as mine. Which places on you...absolutely no requirement of response with what you _may see_ as yours. No man _owes me _response. What is greatest liar but what seeks to make man responsible _to man, and therefore includes an inherent_ responsibility_ for man? _No mere man is _responsible _for the_ response-ability in the creation. _Nevertheless...response comes.

The only man I have ever seen truth "wrung from" spoke such a (and, if only to me, so be it) profoundly disturbing thing as I have been _forced_ to respond to it, and in such force exerted to response, and _of such undeniable force_ I have found myself in_ responding_ in exertion _to the uttermost_ to _its usurpation._ All force I am, and have, has resisted it (and may yet continue as I do not know my own limit) to such a perfect continuity in me, as is _undeniable_. I resist, and yet, _always to a perfect failure _being: "the man who does not know what he does".

My brothers, of _whatever apparent present stripe _(shirts and skins...not shirts _or_ skins) may sense where that puts that resisting thing...relative to forgiveness. For forgiveness is asked...for _that thing. _But _how to be that_, I do not know. I _only know_ of myself...I so deeply (as I yet may plumb) want to present myself, _find myself_...as knowing thing. And, yes, even, "Thing that knows 'what it does'."

And that is where I meet _all opposition_ of a _perfect_ power. To the frustration of that one thing...perfectly. It would appear odd, and I have little doubt it does...that a thing formed to a conclusion of such truth as found in Jesus Christ...would then also find of itself...to such a resistance...to the true _knowing _of such truth.

So as undeniable as is such a struggle within to "make myself appear without" I also hear "You who are neither hot nor cold, I spew..." and all my presumption of what I am, _may_ be, even _hope to be_ in the fixing of placement _by myself..._is now_ laughable. _Am I _"the hot"? _Am I _"the cold"_? Am I "_the lukewarm_"...spewed? All I do know now is that in the very believing...the _knowing of fixing _my position is as unknown to me, by myself, as is all attempt to be_ the thing_ that "knows" is in perfect frustration. As is...all and any attempt to "fix in position"...any other _thing._

Jesus told certain things what other things would precede them into the Kingdom. And now I am _God awe full_ certain that the deeds of presumption that would cause me to think _I knew _and fixed of myself, and by myself, my position in that order _were for necessary exposure._ The only place I find laughter is the only place I can find it, how that the thing that would automatically _think itself_ first is only preceded yet not denied, entrance. Only preceded. I am now _all for_ being "scarcely saved".

Where once I believed I must surely appear...as else to that.

I am laughably glad to be happy in the skin of my teeth. It seems all else would lay upon me responsibility to be more. All, but one. Who knows the depth...of even my deepest resistance...is quite a laughable joke...between He, and I. He touches places of which I had no idea, at all...are. But I assumed...once untouchable...by any. Like Heaven.


----------

