Galas wrote: Posting an article of questionable validity to express in a very tongue-in-cheek manner the oft-repeated assertion that conservatives are functionoing at lower levels is obviously a sign of mental retardation. I should put my blue foam helmet back on so i don't bump my head too hard, eh?
Maybe I should have just added a :p so they wouldn't have taken it as such a serious attack on their intellectual abilities. :p The level of venom in most of these responses does bring to mind the old saying about scalded dogs and yelping. :p
:p There, :p are there enough of these damn :p smileys to get the tone of my post across :p this :p time:p ?
Posting an article of questionable validity to express in a very tongue-in-cheek manner the oft-repeated assertion that conservatives are functionoing at lower levels is obviously a sign of mental retardation. I should put my blue foam helmet back on so i don't bump my head too hard, eh?
Maybe I should have just added a :p so they wouldn't have taken it as such a serious attack on their intellectual abilities. :p The level of venom in most of these responses does bring to mind the old saying about scalded dogs and yelping. :p
:p There, :p are there enough of these damn :p smileys to get the tone of my post across :p this :p time:p ?
So did you know it was fake and you were trolling or you didn't know it was fake and you were trying to attack but not quite a "serious attack"?
Were you trolling or posting unserious content to SB? Either of which is a violation of site rules...
So did you know it was fake and you were trolling or you didn't know it was fake and you were trying to attack but not quite a "serious attack"?
Were you trolling or posting unserious content to SB? Either of which is a violation of site rules...
The article itself may not fit your standards for serious content, but it does shed light on what has been a serious topic - the power of stupid people in large groups, Conservative media's pandering to that intellectual level, and the effect it has had on American politics. I didn't dig for the actual study or the credentials of its supposed publishers, because it is a premise that has been explored multiple times, and is pretty apparent to anyone paying attention.
If it is such an egregious violation of site rules, please CAM it as such. If your objection is more solidly grounded in your own personal taint tenderness, grab some Preparation H and move along.
Galas wrote: The article itself may not fit your standards for serious content, but it does shed light on what has been a serious topic - the power of stupid people in large groups, Conservative media's pandering to that intellectual level, and the effect it has had on American politics.
No. It didn't.
Galas wrote: I didn't dig for the actual study or the credentials of its supposed publishers,
Because there is no study. Pay attention. It was a fake article.
Your OP was a lie. It was a Dan Rather-eqse "fake but accurate" story. Put on your big girl panties and admit it and move on.
Light Writer
Posts: 18,236
Hayward, California, US
SKPhoto wrote: Considering there are no links to such an institute.
Considering that search results don't bring up such a person or organization.
There is an Intelligence-Institute, but that is concerned with the delivery of business information. Nor can any sign of such an article or person show up on that site.
I did much the same set of searches.
The link to "more information" is to a Huff Post article, which uses the term "informed" in its headline rather than "intelligent".
Here's the first sentence of the Huff Post article:
"Another study has concluded that people who only watch Fox News are less informed than all other news consumers."
Which is an entirely different story than the one made up by PRWeb.
The "news" is that an expanded study covering a broader sample, seems to confirm the conclusion that "people who rely on a single source for news are less informed than those who rely on more than one."
Seems like the actual study has little to do with "Intelligence" and little to do with "Conservative".
"4. Variations in Misinformation by Exposure to News Sources
Consumers of all sources of media evidenced substantial misinformation, suggesting that false or misleading information is widespread in the general information environment, just as voters say they perceive it to be. In most cases increasing exposure to news sources decreased misinformation; however, for some news sources on some issues, higher levels of exposure increased
misinformation"
Gianantonio
Posts: 7,634
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
sublime LightWorks wrote: So, after reading all of the replies, what have we learned?
1) The OP fell for exactly the kind of thing she had hoped to embarrass others she disagrees with, by indirectly calling them stupid.
2) The OP is nowhere to be found defending her thread.
3) We have others here who are willfully blinded by their own bias refusing to acknowledge this is a pile of crap.
4) And we have some who are standing up for principles (Stephen, I applaud you), and saying the right thing.
That about wraps it up.
I assume you mean me (my name is Steven)...
What you seem to miss is that I do this all the time. You just agree with me and give me props because you happen to agree with me. So your challenge is to view my comments as just as worthy of consideration when you disagree with me.
Monad Studios
Posts: 8,949
Santa Rosa, California, US
Several people have pointed out that the cited "study" appears to be a hoax. But nobody has given it due credit for being such a clever and creative hoax.
First let's dispose of the credibility of the "study". Yes, several reasonably-credibly studies have found that people who get their news from Fox are less informed about the world and current affairs. This is really no surprise, although the causation is hard to sort out. But that's a different matter.
This mysteriously-sourced press release makes the specific claim that Fox viewers have an average IQ of 80. But there is no identifiable researcher or organization making that claim, and it has apparently not been reported anywhere else except in articles that link to the same press release.
But what a press release it is! The part about dogs and vacuum cleaners was inspired, and the supposed photo of President Obama with a ghostly child holding a tarantula (along with the explanation of how the photo was used in research) is the product of nimble thinking and a fertile imagination.
The release is a bit sloppy on the topic of intelligence testing, and wanders too far from the topic of intelligence. These are minor complaints. It's the best hoax I've seen in a while.
Monad Studios wrote: Several people have pointed out that the cited "study" appears to be a hoax. But nobody has given it due credit for being such a clever and creative hoax.
First let's dispose of the credibility of the "study". Yes, several reasonably-credibly studies have found that people who get their news from Fox are less informed about the world and current affairs. This is really no surprise, although the causation is hard to sort out. But that's a different matter.
This mysteriously-sourced press release makes the specific claim that Fox viewers have an average IQ of 80. But there is no identifiable researcher or organization making that claim, and it has apparently not been reported anywhere else except in articles that link to the same press release.
But what a press release it is! The part about dogs and vacuum cleaners was inspired, and the supposed photo of President Obama with a ghostly child holding a tarantula (along with the explanation of how the photo was used in research) is the product of a fertile imagination.
The release is a bit sloppy on the topic of intelligence testing, and wanders too far from the topic of intelligence. These are minor complaints. It's the best hoax I've seen in a while.
Gianantonio
Posts: 7,634
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Monad Studios wrote: Several people have pointed out that the cited "study" appears to be a hoax. But nobody has given it due credit for being such a clever and creative hoax.
First let's dispose of the credibility of the "study". Yes, several reasonably-credibly studies have found that people who get their news from Fox are less informed about the world and current affairs. This is really no surprise, although the causation is hard to sort out. But that's a different matter.
This mysteriously-sourced press release makes the specific claim that Fox viewers have an average IQ of 80. But there is no identifiable researcher or organization making that claim, and it has apparently not been reported anywhere else except in articles that link to the same press release.
But what a press release it is! The part about dogs and vacuum cleaners was inspired, and the supposed photo of President Obama with a ghostly child holding a tarantula (along with the explanation of how the photo was used in research) is the product of nimble thinking and a fertile imagination.
The release is a bit sloppy on the topic of intelligence testing, and wanders too far from the topic of intelligence. These are minor complaints. It's the best hoax I've seen in a while.
Yes--there were some funny parts to it. But as you point out, their understanding (or, more accurately, their apparent LACK of understanding) of IQ testing was a dead giveaway.
| 
| 
| edu