• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Chitchat The stationary flat Earth

Do you think the Earth is flat and stationary?

  • I'm not sure...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    18

flatearther

Alfrescian
Loyal
the cheapest range of telescope is about $100 to $150 and that should allow you to have good view of the moon.
That's at night, when the moon is at its closest to where you are looking from, while the sun is at the opposite side on the flat Earth, several times farther away; so the sun will be shining at you (at night) from a very small acute angle, while being blocked by mountains and continents that are very much higher than sea level:
[video=youtube;hiOhsKAR6OY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOhsKAR6OY[/video]

[video=youtube;XugZ9wGnk9M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XugZ9wGnk9M[/video]
[video=youtube;sb5kDVdPx84]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb5kDVdPx84[/video]

atlanteanconspiracy.com/2016/02/sun-and-moon-equal-divine-balanced.html

attachment.php


In the Flat-Earth model, the Sun and Moon spotlights are perpetually hovering over and parallel to the surface of the Earth. From our vantage point, due to the Law of Perspective, the day/night luminaries appear to rise up the Eastern horizon, curve peaking high overhead, and then sink below the Western horizon. They do not escape to the underside of the Flat-Earth as one might imagine, but rather rotate concentric clockwise circles around the circumference from tropic to tropic. The appearance of rising, peaking and setting is due to the common Law of Perspective where tall objects appear high overhead when nearby, but at a distance gradually lower towards the vanishing point.

attachment.php


“Although the Sun is at all times above and parallel to the Earth’s surface, he appears to ascend the firmament from morning until noon, and to descend and sink below the horizon at evening. This arises from a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend as it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower, or nearer to the horizon than the last. The farthest light in a row of lamps appears the lowest, although each one has the same altitude. Bearing these phenomena in mind, it will easily be seen how the Sun, although always parallel to the surface of the Earth, must appear to ascend when approaching, and descend after leaving the meridian or noon-day position.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (85)

attachment.php


“What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower … It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the ‘vanishing point’ or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (230-1)
 

Attachments

  • sun-moon-flat.jpg
    sun-moon-flat.jpg
    231.4 KB · Views: 574
Last edited:

flatearther

Alfrescian
Loyal
[video=youtube;LjvtmzbEgm8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjvtmzbEgm8[/video]

[video=youtube;fH7BjIzXWOg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH7BjIzXWOg[/video]
 

hugs

Alfrescian
Loyal
Sun and moon same size or not?:o If not the same, when Sun is one side of earth and moon the other side, wouldn't there be longer day everywhere?

Maybe because your long dong is too silvery? :p
Or maybe because I'm so nice, that I want to protect you from losing? :wink:



Please answer my questions:

Yes, you will believe me, and not accuse me of booking the normal longer one-stop flight (when I show you my boarding pass or any other evidence), instead of the supposedly much shorter non-stop flight? :wink:



Just as NASA can cover up the fake moon landings and other fake activities in "outer space", while the majority of people still seem to believe/trust NASA, is it so difficult for Qantas to cover up a non-existent flight, while continuing to lie that it exists? :wink:
 

flatearther

Alfrescian
Loyal
Sun and moon same size or not?:o
Yes, and only about 3,000 (not "millions" of) miles above the Earth's surface. :o
Furthermore, their diameters are only about 30 miles, and they are also not spheres, as proven in my posts (including quoted posts) just above yours. :wink:
 
Last edited:

hugs

Alfrescian
Loyal
Orh:smile: Thankyou:p

Yes, and only about 3,000 (not "millions" of) miles above the Earth's surface. :o
Furthermore, their diameters are only about 30 miles, and they are also not spheres, as proven in my posts (including quoted posts) just above yours. :wink:
 

longdongsilver

Alfrescian
Loyal
That's at night, when the moon is at its closest to where you are looking from, while the sun is at the opposite side on the flat Earth, several times farther away; so the sun will be shining at you (at night) from a very small acute angle, while being blocked by mountains and continents that are very much higher than sea level:

the sun based on your flat earth model would not have that kind of perspective as depicted in the straightly lined up lights but would look more like the picture below) .Imagine yourself standing in a very big dome shape building and there are light strobes of same height around the edge of the high ceiling of the dome, the light strobes further from you may look smaller but it will still be above the horizon.
and you said the sun is 3000 miles high that is much higher than Himalaya which is only about 8800 meters high..and the sun will be blocked from view in the dark side??
why would Qantas create a fake route so that they can be slammed /ridiculed or even sued by people..for what motives and gains?

flat sun.jpg
 
Last edited:

flatearther

Alfrescian
Loyal
the sun based on your flat earth model would not have that kind of perspective as depicted in the straightly lined up lights but would look more like the picture below) .
That picture (which was also shown in the "Arctic Midnight Sun" video that I've posted a few times before) was taken very near the North Pole (the centre of the flat Earth), during Arctic Summer (in June), right? :wink:
Looks like you've not carefully watched this video that I've also already posted a few times before:

[video=youtube;XugZ9wGnk9M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XugZ9wGnk9M[/video]


Imagine yourself standing in a very big dome shape building and there are light strobes of same height around the edge of the high ceiling of the dome, the light strobes further from you may look smaller but it will still be above the horizon.
And what's the diameter of the floor? Same as the flat Earth's or much shorter, to say the least? :wink:


and you said the sun is 3000 miles high that is much higher than Himalaya which is only about 8800 meters high..and the sun will be blocked from view in the dark side??
Yes, because the acute angle of the sun (during the night) is acute enough. :wink:


Already told you Singapore NTU is one of the customers that used ISRO to launch satellite. So you saying NTU is one of the rich foreign customers paying ISRO to be part of the hoax?
Yes, I'm afraid. :o


You are like a cult that chants your belief without any regard to truth. Making accusations of others without any solid evidence and not even a plausible remote motive.
I can also say the same for you and many others (in fact, the majority of people in the world or at least in the developed world), right? :wink:
The majority always "wins" in some way, but is it always right? :wink:


But for what leh? What's the motive and what does NTU gain out of it?
why would Qantas create a fake route.....for what motives and gains?
Same as why NASA (and all other space agencies) wants to try its very best to deceive as many people as possible into thinking that the flat Earth is a globe/sphere and part of the "solar system", i.e. in order to distract people into thinking about "outer space" (including thinking about a "possible alien" invasion), thereby distracting them from thinking about earthly things, especially from thinking about rebelling against the powers that be, who are living on Earth. :wink:


.. so that they can be slammed /ridiculed or even sued by people
That's if the cover-up fails, right?
But will it fail? :wink:
If the powers that be want to cover up something so that at least the majority trust them, it can be done, right? :wink:
 
Last edited:

longdongsilver

Alfrescian
Loyal
to flatearther..
my spherical earth has a diameter of about 13,000 kilometer,not sure about your flat earth's diameter .and my moon is about 390,000 km from my earth..if we can easily see the details of the moon with a mid range telescope.. i dont see why we cannot see your flat earth's sun using a telescope, granted your sun is smaller in size but it is also at a much shorter distance from earth 3000 miles vs about 200,000 miles-moon's distance from earth..based on your model the sun should be always above the flat earth level and be able to be seen if not by naked eyes then by using a telescope...in short your model fails..
theres nothing much i can say,..if you say they can cover up everything..coz it is pointless to have any more discussion..
 

longdongsilver

Alfrescian
Loyal
""Same as why NASA (and all other space agencies) wants to try its very best to deceive as many people as possible into thinking that the flat Earth is a globe/sphere and part of the "solar system", i.e. in order to distract people into thinking about "outer space" (including thinking about a "possible alien" invasion), thereby distracting them from thinking about earthly things, especially from thinking about rebelling against the powers that be.
""

i have not seen such spastic response for years...flatearther , you are really a joker...
 

ginfreely

Alfrescian
Loyal
That's not true, you cannot say the same of me like a cult chanting a belief without any regard to truth. First I have not made any accusations of others like you did of NTU being in hoax without evidence. Second I supported whatever views I have with proof of real life applications of rocket launches and satellites. Third I also made the effort to dispel your so called flatearth proofs like why aeroplanes not affected by earth spinning and why you can't see so many satellites in space pictures due to the picture scale and the vastness of space the satellites are spread out. Fourth I even posted photos of the ISS and Russian space probe captured by different amateur astronomers from Europe. So if you don't trust NASA, you can still trust these non USA amateurs, can't be all are out to con right by posting fake photos?

Yes, I'm afraid. :o

I can also say the same for you and many others (in fact, the majority of people in the world or at least in the developed world), right? :wink:
The majority always "wins" in some way, but is it always right? :wink:Same as why NASA (and all other space agencies) wants to try its very best to deceive as many people as possible into thinking that the flat Earth is a globe/sphere and part of the "solar system", i.e. in order to distract people into thinking about "outer space" (including thinking about a "possible alien" invasion), thereby distracting them from thinking about earthly things, especially from thinking about rebelling against the powers that be, who are living on Earth. :wink:



That's if the cover-up fails, right?
But will it fail? :wink:
If the powers that be want to cover up something so that at least the majority trust them, it can be done, right? :wink:
 
Last edited:

flatearther

Alfrescian
Loyal
First I have not made any accusations of others like you did of NTU being in hoax without evidence.
The fundamental evidence for the "satellite" hoax is that the Earth is flat and stationary.
The stationary flat Earth itself has also been proven in many other ways.
Therefore, if NTU is involved in "satellite" technology, it is logically also involved in the "satellite" hoax. :wink:


Second I supported whatever views I have with proof of real life applications of rocket launches and satellites. Third I also made the effort to dispel your so called flatearth proofs like why aeroplanes not affected by earth spinning and why you can't see so many satellites in space pictures due to the picture scale and the vastness of space the satellites are spread out.
So basically, you're saying your proofs are correct, while my proofs are wrong, right? :wink:

I can also say my proofs are correct, while yours are wrong, right? :wink:

In any case, ultimately, what's far more important is the TRUTH, not who's right or wrong.... right? :wink:
 
Last edited:

ginfreely

Alfrescian
Loyal
There you go again repeating your earth is flat and stationary and so no satellite bullshit. This is not called proof but cult.

And yes I dispel your so called proofs and wrote in my previous posts clearly why these so called solid proofs are not correct. There is nothing wrong to say something is wrong, this is necessary to point out the fallacy of flat earth theory. Similarly if you think my proof of satellites not a hoax are not solid and not correct then you should dispel my proofs of rocket launches and satellites in orbit in the same way which you couldn't except accusing others like NTU are in cover up.

The fundamental evidence for the "satellite" hoax is that the Earth is flat and stationary.
The stationary flat Earth itself has also been proven in many other ways.
Therefore, if NTU is involved in "satellite" technology, it is logically also involved in the "satellite" hoax. :wink:



So basically, you're saying your proofs are correct, while my proofs are wrong, right? :wink:

I can also say my proofs are correct, while yours are wrong, right? :wink:

In any case, what's far more important is the TRUTH, not who's right or wrong.... right? :wink:
 

flatearther

Alfrescian
Loyal
There you go again repeating your earth is flat and stationary and so no satellite bullshit. This is not called proof but cult.
But I and many other flat-Earthers around the world think it's qualified to be proof, not cult. :wink:
Just as globe-Earthers consider flat-Earthers to be a cult, flat-Earthers also consider globe-Earthers to be a much bigger cult. :wink:
So how? :(


And yes I dispel your so called proofs and wrote in my previous posts clearly why these so called solid proofs are not correct. There is nothing wrong to say something is wrong, this is necessary to point out the fallacy of flat earth theory. Similarly if you think my proof of satellites not a hoax are not solid and not correct then you should dispel my proofs of rocket launches and satellites in orbit in the same way which you couldn't except accusing others like NTU are in cover up.
The proofs can already be read/viewed in my posts or via the links and videos in them.
You (and some people) simply don't agree, while others agree, right? :wink:
 
Last edited:

Thick Face Black Heart

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
But I and many other flat-Earthers around the world think it's qualified to be proof, not cult. :wink:
Just as globe-Earthers consider flat-Earthers to be a cult, flat-Earthers also consider globe-Earthers to be a much bigger cult. :wink:
So how? :(



The proofs can already be read/viewed in my posts or via the links and videos in them.
You (and some people) simply don't agree, while others agree, right? :wink:


I like what zhihau has done. He has made this a sticky so that people can see that "the ignorant can be educated, the sick can be medicated, but stupidity has no cure!"

Judge humankind by its results. Sure we have massacred each other in bloody wars. But we have also invented new technologies. We have advanced all areas of math and science. We have cured many diseases except the common cold and stupidity. We have even developed models to explain the big bang. We have proven the riemann conjecture for dimensions 8 and 24.

Name me one thing you flat earth society can contribute to humankind other than your stupidity and your weak attempt at pseudo scientology. You don't even have the reasoning ability of an O level student.
 
Last edited:

ginfreely

Alfrescian
Loyal
What you mean by i simply don't agree with the proofs in your posts? Didn't i already wrote there WHY the proofs are not correct? You mean some people put up these must be correct and must agree? If you think my WHY of them being incorrect is incorrect then you should counter prove it which you couldn't except dismissing everything as cover up.

The problem with flat earther and many humans here is they love conspiracy theory. The more juicy the more dirty the better when the truth is totally not like that at all. Yes there could be some cover up here and there by NASA or Russia in terms of details of the space program, especially during the cold war time. But the satellites are there, the ISS and space shuttle and space probes and what not are all there as proven even the amateur astronomers can also capture some images via telescope, while the rest too small and too far you can only see as a star in picture.

But I and many other flat-Earthers around the world think it's qualified to be proof, not cult. :wink:
Just as globe-Earthers consider flat-Earthers to be a cult, flat-Earthers also consider globe-Earthers to be a much bigger cult. :wink:
So how? :(



The proofs can already be read/viewed in my posts or via the links and videos in them.
You (and some people) simply don't agree, while others agree, right? :wink:
 
Last edited:

flatearther

Alfrescian
Loyal
Name me one thing you flat earth society can contribute to humankind other than your stupidity and your weak attempt at pseudo scientology.
I've already answered something similar before:
If sphere earth theory is right, it motivated many discoveries. For example, satellites and gravity.
There's no "if" because "sphere earth theory" is wrong, and it motivated imaginary fake discoveries. :wink:


Flat theory has bring about what sort of discoveries?Base purely on the theory of flat earth, what was invented or discovered?
Everything else. :wink:
 

flatearther

Alfrescian
Loyal
What you mean by i simply don't agree with your proofs? Didn't i already wrote there WHY the proofs are not correct? You mean some people put up these must be correct and must agree? If you think my WHY of them being incorrect is incorrect then you should counter prove it which you couldn't except dismissing everything as cover up.
Firstly, most of your so-called "proofs" were actually counter-proofs to my initial proofs, especially since I'm the thread-starter and you only started posting in my thread over a week after I started it, right? :wink:

Secondly, if I were to counter-prove your "proofs", I would simply be re-posting my initial proofs, so I might as well let you have the last word, even though I think your "proofs" are wrong. :wink:
 
Last edited:

ginfreely

Alfrescian
Loyal
That's not true. Read my earlier post #410 today that I quoted below. What you provided in your posts to support your view of satellites is a hoax is like the second category that I mentioned in my post that I provided to say satellites is not a hoax. What you failed to do is the third category to prove my proofs are not solid. And notice what i did in third category to explain your proofs are not correct (like why the aeroplanes are not affected by earth spinning) have nothing to do with my second category proofs of rocket launches and satellites in orbit to prove satellites are not a hoax. In other words I have proven to you by my actions that it will not and should not be just re posting your initial proofs.

Firstly, most of your so-called "proofs" were actually counter-proofs to my initial proofs, especially since I'm the thread-starter and you only started posting in my thread over a week after I started it, right? :wink:

Secondly, if I were to counter-prove your "proofs", I would simply be re-posting my initial proofs, so I might as well let you have the last word, even though I think your proofs are wrong. :wink:

That's not true, you cannot say the same of me like a cult chanting a belief without any regard to truth. First I have not made any accusations of others like you did of NTU being in hoax without evidence. Second I supported whatever views I have with proof of real life applications of rocket launches and satellites. Third I also made the effort to dispel your so called flatearth proofs like why aeroplanes not affected by earth spinning and why you can't see so many satellites in space pictures due to the picture scale and the vastness of space the satellites are spread out. Fourth I even posted photos of the ISS and Russian space probe captured by different amateur astronomers from Europe. So if you don't trust NASA, you can still trust these non USA amateurs, can't be all are out to con right by posting fake photos?
 
Last edited:

Thick Face Black Heart

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Another innocent life lost to school bullying.

Is the young generation really a weak, strawberry generation, or are the authorities not doing enough to combat vicious bullying in schools?


NEW YORK-- A 13-year-old Staten Island boy took his own life after what he described as merciless bullying by his classmates at a private Catholic school, according to CBS New York.

Danny Fitzpatrick hung himself in the attic of his home on Thursday.

The teen left behind a hand-written note describing the alleged abuse by five boys at Holy Angels Catholic Academy in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.

"They did it constantly," Danny said in a note, adding that he told his teachers, but they did nothing.

"I gave up the teachers ... they didn't do ANYTHING," Danny wrote.

Daniel Fitzpatrick, Danny's father, said in an emotional Facebook video that his son "was a kind, gentle little soul" and "didn't have a mean bone in his body."

"No child should have to go through what my son went through," Fitzpatrick said.

Brooklyn Archdiocese spokeswoman Carolyn Erstad said they take the issue of bullying very seriously.

"Daniel's complaints about bullying did not fall upon deaf ears," Erstad said. "The principal believes she did everything in her power to help Daniel, and to deal with any students accused of bullying."

However, that's not enough for Fitzpatrick, who had a message for the parents of the other boys.

"You get to hold your children every night and day for the rest of your lives and their natural lives. I don't get that anymore," he said.

The NYPD confirms they are investigating.

The Fitzpatrick family has set up a GoFundMe page to give Danny a "proper memorial to shine a bright light" on bullying.
 
Last edited:

Thick Face Black Heart

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Directed at Jah Rastafuck our local resident racist:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html


The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.

Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience.

"The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists."

Brains and bias

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured.

In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

A study of averages

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said.

Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally.

"We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap."

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.

"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link.

Simple viewpoints

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.

"There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.

You can follow LiveScience senior writer Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappas. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.
 
Top