Quickies

Skepchick Quickies, 12.30

Tags

Jen

Jen is a writer and web designer/developer in Columbus, Ohio. She spends too much time on Twitter at @antiheroine.

Related Articles

14 Comments

  1. Regarding the science democracy article:

    I think it should already be obvious that the public™ as an entity is about as intelligent as a 5 year old with ADD.
    I mean, the public™ elected George W. Bush.
    TWICE!

    ’nuff said …

  2. @exarch: ADD has nothing to do with intelligence! You can have ADD and be brilliant. In fact, most people with ADD are brilliant, but just can’t channel that energy. Having known a genius adult with ADD, yeah…it really has nothing to do with intelligence. Promise.

    @Elyse: At least he didn’t call it “gay” or “retarded”? lol

  3. @exarch: Having once been stupid enough to call my friend’s child with ADHD “dumb” to her when I was in an extremely frustrated mood; you’re better off just apologizing and checking out what these disorders are all about. Just a friendly “slap on the hand” from someone who’d been there…

  4. Why, why, why, why, why does that ginko article do a reasonably good job of (very) briefly describing the results the study only to close out with a statement from a former naturopath who currently shills for the supplement industry stating that he would still recommend it to people because he’s “seen” it’s effective. Ugh.

  5. @chistat: Wow that last line does really negate everything else that is written doesn’t it. Had to go back to read it again cause I missed it (hey I’m a traditional reader my focus drops off after about 5 or so paragraphs). Hopefully everyone else misses it as well.

  6. @chistat: I believe it’s because of that dreaded phrase, “You never know.” (Never mind that we do occasionally know.)

    I think the funniest dismissal I’ve heard of that statement, though, was to sing it to the tune of the Muppets’ “Manah Manah.”

    You never know. Doot-doo-oo dee-doo-do0.

  7. @exarch:

    I think it should already be obvious that the publicâ„¢ as an entity is about as intelligent as a 5 year old with ADD.

    There’s an economist named Bryan Caplan who wrote a book a couple of years ago called The Myth of the Rational Voter. He made the argument that since each person has so little effect on the outcome of the election they have no incentive to research the merits of different policies and candidates, or even spend much time thinking about them.

    This explains how the voting public can support some breathtakingly stupid things while being reasonably smart most of the time.

    He actually had some good data on how the opinions of economists and non-economists differed on economic issues. I’d really like to see similar studies done for other disciplines.

  8. To everyone who misunderstood:
    (that’s @Elyse, @Zapski, @marilove, @James Fox, @MiddleMan), please point out where I said that ADD=dumb?

    I did not, did I?

    What does ADD mean?
    It means “Attention Deficit Disorder”.

    As in, the public™, while not only having the intelligence of a five year old, also has the attention span of a goddamn goldfish (case in point: @loudlyquiet: hey I’m a traditional reader my focus drops off after about 5 or so paragraphs).

    I rest my case.

  9. @exarch: If I misunderstood then I apologize. However when I read, ”… is about as intelligent as a 5 year old with ADD.” it gave every appearance of associating low cognitive functioning as an ADD corollary. Five year olds clearly lack education and life experience, they are typically not referred to as having low intelligence because of this lack of accumulated knowledge and experience. Your statement appeared to clearly infer an association between ADD and intelligence. And as ADD has nothing to do with long term memory and intelligence, why would it have an impact on ones voting habits? Do you see that this is also a somewhat degrading potentially insulting inference for a person with ADD and many five year olds?

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close