Animation fun; also: Human values are determined by intelligence.

[mckitterick]

Okay, if you haven't seen it, this animation is wonderful and clever: Behold, "Animator vs. Animation":

Click the image to see the first "Animator vs. Animation" flash animation by Alan Becker.

The artist, Alan Becker, made a sequel where Stick Man gains super-powers:

Click the image to see "Animator vs. Animation II," by Alan Becker.

In related news, Liberals, atheists, and sexually fidelitous males have higher IQ than conservatives, religionists, and male cheaters (CNN News). Let's frame that in a less-inflammatory way: Human values are determined by intelligence (ABC News). Not that one needs to comment much about this, because it's rather apparent when listening to wingnut conservatives scream against science or contradict themselves day after day. Still, it's nice to see some evidence that explains why so many people, say, believed Bush's lies and allowed the Republican party to trash the nation. It explains the existence of the Teabaggers and Sarah Palin supporters. And it explains why they still let politicians and right-wing talking-heads control them using using fears, and why they stop listening to rational arguments because facts are hard.

Chris

Comments

[chernobylred.livejournal.com]

it explains why they still let politicians and right-wing talking-heads control them using using fears

People have been letting others control them through religious fear since, well, since the start of religion. Hm, that's a bit recursive. And unfortunate.

And for anyone who's been under a rock and hasn't seen this Leonard Pitts, Jr. essay...

[athenaartemis.livejournal.com]

The point the article makes in the first few paragraphs is important - a difference of 6-11 points doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. Look at the difference between atheists and religious people - 97 vs 103. Both are still well within normal (which depends on which test they used, but is often 80-120), and neither is exceptionally one way or the other.

[jjschwabach.livejournal.com]

I have always assumed that people who do not question their beliefs have somehow shut down their curiosity circuit. It gets back to the thing I mentioned on the other thread about the dude who couldn't see any proof of a large asteroid strike on Earth's surface. I actually made this userpic in your honor, Chris.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Well, 10% or so is pretty significant if not indicting; the important lesson here is that people who are unable or unwilling to listen to facts and reason tend to become mindless followers of the loudest leaders.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, curiosity is more important than intelligence! I wonder if anyone's done a study on that....

(Love the icon.)

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

I've been under a rock, so thanks for sharing that essay. Though "thanks" might not be the word....

[chernobylred.livejournal.com]

Whoops. I was certain I'd sent that to you earlier this week. Sorry!

[jjschwabach.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I thought you would ;-). You may steal her, if you like.

I don't know for sure, but I know that logic puzzles are supposed to be the best indicator of adaptability, which is surely an evolutionary advantage. I know someone who's highly intelligent, as long as he's within his area of understanding, but has large gaps in his *knowledge.* Still, he's a liberal, so we need to factor that into our theory.

[paulwoodlin.livejournal.com]

"the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be."

So how is this not a contradiction? I mean, I get that we shouldn't assume that an individual is dumb because they're a conservative (there was a time when intelligent conservatives made their TV worth watching), but if a person chooses a less intelligent option, why doesn't that say something about them? And what about a person who makes a less rational choice but is really good at rationalizing it?

[paulwoodlin.livejournal.com]

I hadn't read that either, but it didn't really surprise me. The conservative movement has been losing its grip on reality since 1980, mostly so they could repaint the past and not feel bad about being on the wrong side of the civil rights movement and other issues. Once they started down that path to the Dark Side...

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't think one can read these studies as saying that all liberals are smart and forward-thinking or all conservatives are dumb and easily swayed, but I think it helps understand why liberal masses tend to demand evidence and facts while conservative masses tend to accept whatever lies and crackpot theories their leaders spout - and why they deny facts.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

As I responded above, the danger with this kind of information is stereotyping rather than using it to help understand the world. Indeed, many conservatives are smart and even, sometimes, correct ;-)

[jjschwabach.livejournal.com]

I did find the study where they moved the construction signs to be quite interesting, though.

I'm confused by the Birthers, too. Do they even understand that if they were able to prove (which they can't, because it ain't so) that Obama was not born in the US, McCain (who actually wasn't) would not be the President?

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Ha! And that Palin wouldn't be, either, because she was born on some alien world.

[siro-gravity.livejournal.com]

i read most of that CNN piece earlier this week. i have to say, that although i find it easy to believe that liberals and atheists have higher IQs than their god-fearin' conservative counterparts, the article itself is too full of assumptions about male/female gender roles, and buys into ideas about evolution (as it relates to male promiscuity, for example) and the role of the church that are just kinda bullshit, to say it nicely. :D

both of those animations are super fun!!!! i think i prefer the top one. thanks for sharing!

[tully01.livejournal.com]

Actually it's only barely statistically significant, and both overt and covert assumptions used in the study beg the questions of both group and fundamental attribution error, as well as selection bias and confirmation bias. Among other things. I wouldn't take it very seriously.

Then again, it does come from Satoshi Kanazawa. Maybe you should check out some of his other research, to see what else he's known for, and how well he constructs his study models.

rabdom commenter

[rowanda380.livejournal.com]

I loved the videos and the articles, sweet!

[jjschwabach.livejournal.com]

Clearly.