by frog
We have always been aware of the fact that we are the party of academics, scientists and free thinkers. It often gets in the way of our communications, all our dense and carefully crafted policy.
But now the research is in. Brainy children are likely to grow up and vote green. According to the The Times:
Cleverer children are more likely to vote for the Green Party or the Liberal Democrats in a general election than other parties when they become adults, research suggests. The study, by the University of Edinburgh and the UK Medical Research Council and published in the journal Intelligence, indicates that childhood IQ is as important as social class in determining political allegiance. The IQs of more than 6,000 subjects were recorded at the age of 10, before any secondary schooling. Twenty-four years later they were asked about their voting habits.
Go figure. I guess we knew this instinctively. 
Published in Society & Culture by frog on Wed, November 12th, 2008
Tags: children, intelligence, IQ, vote
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I would expect ACT and the Greens to have the highest average IQ voters in NZ as well – and there is no ACT-like party in the UK.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Judging from the electorate returns in one of your earlier posts, the further one lives from the great outdoors, the more likely one is to vote Green.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>It often gets in the way of our communications, all our dense and carefully crafted policy.
Well that’s not very smart, is it.
“The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the necessary may speak”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh no, not a pointless “we’re smarter than you” contest.
Anyway, in a democracy us thickies get to participate as much as you boffin-types (I hope). If you can’t covince us to vote Green, maybe you’re not so smart as yu fink?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the necessary may speak”
I find that a confusing sentence, BP, Karl Popper put it more clearly:
“Anyone who cannot speak simply and clearly should say nothing and continue to work until he (sic) can do so.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Heh heh, nicely put Sam.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think Karl Popper is trying to shut people up, which is not the same thing I’m talking about.
For example, when I read Green policy, I find it confused and woolly. It sounds like the work of committee group-think. Trying to be clever, but failing to be smart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Or trying to be wholistic and ending up woolistic
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Green Policy IS the work of committees BP, volunteer work. Unpaid.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Explains a lot….
I prefer the clear vision and action of strong leaders, like Steve Jobs, myself.
If you want something not doing, send it to committee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Consider the party size and resources… it could not be any other way.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s got nothing to do with resources, it’s a question of organisation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem with this dear Frog is that the UK Greens and the NZ Greens are not the same party. The agendas are different and so are the policies and roots.
Affection by association is not a characteristic of politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One of the great things about a global recession is funds for rediculous meaningles research like this will dry up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda
No it wont. Otago and Auckland University will consider to get disproportionate funding for research.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Popper quote is from an essay “Against Big Words” slamming intellectuals who used confusing language and complexity to elevate themselves in the eyes of their audience. Don’t think he was trying to silence anyone.
“I prefer the clear vision and action of strong leaders, like Steve Jobs, myself.”
How about Lenin?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
His politics was all wrong…
Are you suggesting the opposite of management by committee is bloody dictatorship by psychopath?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
for what its worth we do have a very large number, proportionally, of people I would call “pseudos”,that is total dips who cant think for themselves and just act it all out while they try to convince themselves they are smart and different and only manage to fool others of the same cloth. they are kind of like the emo’s of the green and socialist movements.
I think stalin was much worse than lenin, lenin was mearly corupted by power, stalin sought it from the begining and manipulated the ignorant communists for that purpose. I quite like trotsky though, pitty about the ice pick
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Are you suggesting the opposite of management by committee is bloody dictatorship by psychopath?”
Not the opposite, just a likely consequence. The dilution of democracy is dangerous, unless you are goimg to have a committee to rein in the strong leaders that turn out to be a bit too strong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BTW:
EFA
Goff
Vindiction for us!
Will you apologize Greens?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BTW, Don’t know much about Steve Jobs, but I happened across this quote from him:
“My model for business is The Beatles: They were four guys that kept each other’s negative tendencies in check; they balanced each other. And the total was greater than the sum of the parts. Great things in business are not done by one person, they are done by a team of people.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This sums it up.
http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/the_great_seduction/2008/07/steve-jobs-is-h.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>
‘Scuse me! Did someone say “democracy is dangerous, unless you are goimg (sic) to have a committee to rein in the strong” Democracy isn’t about committees, that’s communism again! At least you can describe your approach to domination, even if you can’t remember the label.
>
My age is showing! I read “Otago and Auckland University will consider to get disproportionate funding for research.” But have absolutely no idea what it means! Dementia must be setting in. Can someone construe it for me please?
>
BluePeter: this quote from the article . . . .
“the 3G iPhone is Jobs’ most audacious product since he introduced the first personal computer, the Mac, in 19 84” indicates just how uninformed the author is! (Although his theory bashing analysis of Apple and Jobs’ leadership styles are both spot on!)
For the record, the first personal computer was the Xerox Goldring from PARC. Then using technology developed by PARC, and especially the mouse, Apple produced the Apple II, quickly followed by the Apple III. Then came Apple’s Lisa, then finally the Apple Mac, which was an expanded Lisa without the beauty of Lisa’s document software.
I know it’s pedantic, but Mac was a retrograde step, and the Xerox Palo Alto Research Centre (PARC) is where we should tip our hats in thanks for the PC and Information Revolution.
>
)
Right. Back to work (
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings, I know, however the bit I’m getting at is the leadership style.
Committee Vs Leader
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
(“”(Although his theory bashing analyses of Apple and Jobs’ leadership styles are both spot on!)”")
I know too, and I said so
Happy daze
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings
You’re thinking of the Xerox Alto, and its design was first borrowed by the Lisa rather than the Apple II.
A recent article on Jobs can be found here:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20081107_005504.html
[...] So as the most vulnerable person in Jobs’ inner circle, [inventor of the iPod] Fadell had to go. That Fadell’s wife was head of Human Resources for Apple and was forced, essentially, to terminate her own husband, well that was just gravy and yet another reason for Apple employees to take the stairs rather than risk sharing an elevator with Jobs.
Fear can be a remarkable motivator.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I just thought I’d take a quick look at the Frog Blog, and when I saw this one I couldn’t help but write something.
I was a member of Mensa for a little while which I guess puts me in the catagory of one of the “brainy” people that is more likely to vote Green.
I didn’t vote Green.
I was thinking about voting Green a while ago though. But learning about how the Greens work made me realise it would have been a big mistake.
One of the reasons I gave up on the Greens is that they think they will find a peacefull solution to the worlds environmental problems. Unfortunately the human race still has one very valuable lesson to learn.
Humility.
It’s a lesson I think the Greens need to learn too.
Some of the smartest people in the world helped make the human race as sucessfull as it is now. And from what I’ve found most of those very same people understand the limits that our planet pose on us.
Unfortunately the majority of people aren’t as smart.
Hey, even people way smarter than me make mistakes, but there is a difference between making a mistake and hoping it doesn’t happen again, and actually learning from your mistakes so that you consciously avoid making it happen again.
The mistakes that human kind are making now have happened before, and probably will again. In my view 1 or 2 of 3 things will happen in the next couple of years.
1. Environmental problems will cause a large increase in global death rates.
2. Global warfare over resources (most likely water) will happen.
or
3. Someone is going to find another resource (or planet), that we haven’t discovered yet that will delay 1 or 2 from happening for maybe another decade or so.
Here’s a general knowledge question:
Can anyone tell me who said this?
“I am convinced that some political and social activities
and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental
and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and
everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth
control at a time when overpopulation in various countries
has become a serious threat to the health of people and a
grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this
planet.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Here’s a general knowledge question:
Can anyone tell me who said this?
Why yes. Albert Einstein, in 1954, not long before his death?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug T says: One of the reasons I gave up on the Greens is that they think they will find a peacefull solution to the worlds environmental problems.
Yes. I’m sure that a good proportion of the Greens have those cornucopian views. Do you think they are being deliberately deceptive, or just naively well-meaning? Don’t you think that we need to have a global positive approach to the problems you envisage? Otherwise, isn’t your position in very real danger of being misanthropic? Of course, you may already regard yourself as a misanthrope and that is fine. It is a perfectly understandable stance. But I would like to think that humankind can realise its potential with a global co-operative approach to the environmental and social problems that befall us. It is hard to be optimistic though.
Is there any other party that even contemplates your thesis? For at least some of the party are clearly deep greens and/or neo-Mathusians which are more likely to agree with your position, wouldn’t you say?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
1) LOL, MENSA.
2) There is nothing wrong with misanthrophy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nigel Kearney is on the right page when he says:
“I would expect ACT and the Greens to have the highest average IQ voters in NZ as well – and there is no ACT-like party in the UK.”
And this is reflected in party caucuses too.
Based on research published in the Herald soon after the 2002 General Elections in NZ, ACT and the Greens were found to have the highest proportion of MPs with tertiary qualifications – 89% each (i.e. 8 out of 9, and both ACT and the Greens had 9 MPs then).
No surprises which party scored the lowest: NZ First with 15% (2 of out its then 13 MPs had tertiary qualifications).
Let’s hope with the disappearance of NZ First from Parliament, the collective wisdom of MPs has now been enhanced.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One of the reasons I gave up on the Greens is that they think they will find a peacefull solution to the worlds environmental problems.
Observational error: That may be what SOME Green’s think, it isn’t very common here.
was thinking about voting Green a while ago though. But learning about how the Greens work made me realise it would have been a big mistake.
How does THIS conclusion relate to the first observational error? It does not.
Most of us don’t regard it as optimistically as you think. Some of us regard it as our responsibility to try our damnedest regardless of the likely outcome.
You, by your gift, have an even greater responsibility than usual, to try to encompass change. You are aware of there being different kinds of intelligence. The social intelligence that exists in this party would appear to exceed your own sense of responsibility to the group.
Lets assume that you are correct in that 1 or 2 or both occur. It isn’t something I neglected to consider when I decided to MIGRATE to New Zealand after quitting my job at the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab, It isn’t something that I am neglecting in my attempts to get more wind turbines and more mass transit etc. etc. It isn’t something I am neglecting in my work on the Green Defence policy.
I am happy to work for a peaceful and painless solution, and I do advocate it. That does not mean I expect it. Lotto offers better odds.
http://tqe.quaker.org/2007/TQE155-EN-WorldEnergy-1.html
However, I have a duty to my children, to the country I have adopted and to the human species as a whole, to attempt to preserve them against the folly of utterly consuming the planet.
What is YOUR duty?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Don’t you think that we need to have a global positive approach to the problems you envisage?
>>
Absolutely. SO lets have a global Green party:
that abhors the fight between left and right
Fights for Gaia with all its might
And doesn’t advocate wrong or right
Unless it averts the long dark night
The Aotearoa Green New Zealand Party’s problem is it insists that earth can’t be saved outside a socialist environment. Which has to be an overflowing basket of testicles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
String theory, eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings
I am sure that there are some in the caucus who reckon things that way. My view isn’t that “socialism is good”, but that capitalism is broken… no, not quite that. THIS Capitalism is resting on a broken foundation. Debt Based, Fractional Reserve, Fiat currency.
I reckon that if we set the dollar to be backed by X amount of electrical power from a standard socket and a back conversion for returning it to the grid we’d accomplish a lot more than by issuing guarantees to the banks.
Not a particular fan of socialism but I am aware of the flaws of capitalism. Some inequality is inevitable, natural and desirable. Massive inequality is none of those things and violently self correcting to boot.
We in New Zealand should be working to lower our GINI index a little… others with a GINI too low, are in trouble on the other side. That is extremely uncommon in the world right now.
This is not the same as a socialist environment… however it is true that I am equipped with big green ones.
- Verdigris on brass
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
don’t forget our Ovarian Cysters too
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ
I’m with Churchill on this one. Democracy certainly isn’t the best method of social governance, but until that one is discovered it’s the best we’ve got. The same goes for capitalism in my mind.
I have spent some time looking at the true opposite, which is where demand in proactively managed and production is adjusted to meet that demand. However, while it has some good points (punishing people by making them over-consume is quite an interesting concept to explore) it has far more bad ones.
There is no example of a stable socialist regime that achieved equity on a national scale. There are examples of capitalist states that did that. However, the AGPNZ seems to advocate a socialist regime with heavy life style control and regulation; there is my reason for being unable to join “the Party” while maintaining several common views on Gaia’s pending extinction of mankind as another failed experiment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS my ssssssssssssssssss comment was to Samiam, purporting to string’s’ theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>>String theory, eh?
Certainly exposing your intelligence there, samiam. Whatever Party you supported has just had its average IQ raised
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
KJUV
Would that be the Anti-Dog Party do you think?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think that you mistake the ideal pursued here… but I wouldn’t pretend at this point, that I know exactly what you mean by socialism or that you know what I might mean when I use the word. We’ll have to define that word a lot better if we’re going to discuss it.
The issue of Democracy or lack thereof is orthogonal to capitalism v. socialism. We must be careful with our words.
If anything we probably prefer the sort of arrangements the Scandinavian countries have managed (though it would be wrong for me to assert that I speak for most greens I’d be surprised if this were not the case). Mixing Socialism and Capitalism with a heavy dose of social justice. I don’t think you can deny that such models ARE stable.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
by god, you people have such low qualifying levels for intelligence!
first, i have seen membership to MENSA be used as a “im smart” arguement too many times, it is an organisation with a entry IQ of the 98th percentile, that is approx 130, lol, incredibly low. I mean seriously, i would expect most of the contributers here can pass tne that profoundly low pole, if i ssociated with the members of mensa the average intelligence of my associates would probally decrease, lol.
second, string theory? i mean come on! does anyone still attribute validity to such flawed assertion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sam B said:
Such lack of ambition: How about Stalin?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ
How about we take the OED definition?
>
socialism
• noun: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole via an appointed or elected governance vehicle.
Seems to me to fit all the none “sustainability” policies of the AGPNZ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All the none?
All the nun?
All the known?
All or none?
Help!?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK
All the policies that are not related to ecological sustainability.
.
Clearer ?
.
.
.
.
.
.
none
• pronoun 1 not any. 2 no one.
• adverb (none the) with comparative by no amount: none the wiser.
— USAGE Some traditionalists maintain that none can only take a singular verb (as in none of them is coming tonight rather than none of them are coming tonight). However, none is descended from Old English nan meaning ‘not one’, and has been used for around a thousand years with either a singular or a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed.
— ORIGIN Old English.
Source OED
Note sustainability is a singular verb so the none in question fits old and traditionalist perspectives in this usage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ENGLISH is such a lovely subject I graduated in it twice, might do a PhD in its current usage in TXT after I retire
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
strings
should have read continue not consider
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
strings,
seems to me that “non-sustainability” would have been much more appropriate and clear, lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Merlin
Ah! Thanks
Sapient
Truism, but sadly hyphens cannot link over a ‘ or ” and maintain their link and having it exactly the way you have would have made it a non-sequitur!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
meh, perfection of grammar can easily and justiibly be sacrificed on the alter of clarity and conciseness.
I never quite got english majors, but then again ive never quite got english; language has always been one of my weakest areas, i only learnt when to ue ‘a’ and ‘an’ in my last year of school
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, the burden of an English Major. Luckily I did a triple of English, Data Processing and Commerce (the DP was exploring the wonders of the about to be release COBOL language!!)
All I really value these 40+ years later is my ability to punctuate effectively. One of my favorite books is
eats
shoots
and
leaves
which a desk neighbour once thought was about a brothel!!
I would, however, recommend a study of that wonder of our language, the apostrophe – an oft maligned, and regularly discarded, major contributor to understanding the written word, and much easier to master than “a” and “an”.
As I say many times each day, happy daze!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
I don’t think anyone has a duty to the human race, or to the planet for that matter. I think people read too much into our existence. We are after all just a product of the evolution of life on Earth. Nothing more and nothing less (unless you believe in God). We do have the ability though, to understand, on a larger scale, the consequences of our actions, but that does not make us any better or more important than any other form of life.
I guess trying to save the world is a noble cause, but you have to remember that you are talking about changing human nature, and that is impossible for even a million like minded people to do.
Here’s an example of what I mean:
There have been quite a few cases of people being burned to death in houses over the years right here in NZ. No matter what you do to prevent a fire happening, there is always a chance that a fire might start in your own home. Having a working smoke alarm can, and has, prevented unnecessary death in house fires, so we know it’s a good idea to have at least 1 working smoke alarm installed. Despite this, we still hear of people being killed in house fires where no smoke alrms were installed, or they were not maintained properly. I would assume some of the reasons might be that, some people just don’t think it will happen to them, others just can’t be bothered, or maybe they just don’t have the money to spend on a smoke alarm. And it is true that some people will go through their entire life and never be involved in a house fire (lucky them). Those of us who have smoke alarms probably don’t understand why others would not take such a relatively easy and inexpensive precaution, but the fact is that some people just don’t have smoke alarms.
So what has that got to do with what I was saying?
Well those same people that don’t bother to take the small amount of time and money to install a smoke alarm that could save their own and their families lives, are the same people you are trying to convince to change their way of life to save the planet.
The other bit I said about the way the Greens work was a dig at the fact that (I guess you would say some) Greens believe it is justified to break laws that might be detrimental to their cause, while at the same time trying to make laws that they expect everyone else to obey for the sake of the Green’s causes. That sounds like a slightly arrogant double standard to me.
I must say though, I respect the fact that you guys have a poplulation policy that actually considers limits, but I was very dissapointed to see no defence of the policy when the media and other politicians rubbished it so quickly. You can’t just tell someone to take the red pill, you have to at least explain why you are giving it to them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well put, DougT.
Regarding the Greens “trying to convince to change their way of life to save the planet”, this is where you will see the religiosity of the Greens shine forth. Reminds me of the fundamentalist Christians I once associated with, who were constantly trying to convince me to change my way of life to save my soul. Apathy in me only grew.
There is nothing wrong with trying to convince someone else of your position. But the fervour with which some Greens try and sell the eco-message is rather off-putting. It certainly put me off, even when I was a Greens member.
Some of you in the Greens who post here may be familiar with the spiel I did regarding the zeal with which the Greens espouse the virtues of veganism/vegetarianism, and how off-putting it can be. Many agreed with what I had to say. Promoting something that is a good idea (or that you think is a good idea) is one thing; trying to ram it down everyone’s throat, and/or speaking of the unconverted condescendingly is not only arrogant but also counter-productive.
As for the Greens willing “to break laws that might be detrimental to their cause, while at the same time trying to make laws that they expect everyone else to obey for the sake of the Green’s causes”, that is exactly what I said on another thread somewhere on this blog. (This was in response to an accusation that ACT was being hypocritical about upholding IP rights, I believe.)
Yes, when environmental laws are broken, the Greens will fight tooth and nail to have the perpetrator(s) implicated. But when environmental activists destroy property to make a point, the Greens praise these perpetrators as heroes and revolutionaries, whilst also trivialising these violations of property rights as mere “non-violent direct action”.
You can’t pick and choose which laws you follow. If we pander to ideological subjectivism, the rule of law in this country will be undermined, and chaos will ensue.
Maybe this is what the Greens want; that way they can institute their New World Order of Sustainability.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DougT
I considered whether to answer you. It IS late.
So…. what actually motivates you to get out of bed in the morning anyway? I do it because I have responsibilities. What is the purpose of life? What is the meaning?
Well, I am not religious. Doubt you’d be either. So you get to make up some answer to the question, here’s mine.
The purpose to life is survival, procreation and survival. Survival of the individual, survival of the family, of the community of the country… of the species. That “purpose” is not something someone else put there, It is a natural result of evolution as well. I can go higher than human species if you wish. Survival of intelligent life in the Universe. That may let this species off the hook as you observed.
Most people can’t wrap their heads around this answer.
This gives me a North for my moral compass. If that is the purpose I construct for life, what am I obliged to do to fulfill that purpose? I have to try to preserve the species, the country, my family, my children and all subsequent descendants and me. How does it get to be a duty?
Out of 6 billion of us only tiny percentage have the combination of ability and opportunity to do the sort of things I do. The masses CAN’T do it.
Personally I don’t reckon I will be thanked even if I work out how to make the miracle happen, and I am very much aware that failure is not only an option but almost a damn certainty.
So what gets YOU out of bed in the morming anyway?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Very nicely put, bjchip.
I’ll leave it at that because one can’t improve on perfection
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I had pages of stuff written out about the meaning of life and all that, but I accidentally lost it all when I clicked on a link.
But the most important thing I remember that I wrote was that the thing that gets me out of bed in the morning is my radio Alarm clock.
And don’t get so worried about saving the planet BJ, if there is no way that you can convince me that eating mung beans will save the world, there’s no way you’ll convince the 99% of people that are dumber than me.
Thanks for the all the neat discussions and stuff, but I think I need to get back to living life rather than trying to understand what it is.
Doug
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)