A study was done on the reaction time in milliseconds to images on a screen, and conservatives were found to be slower to give the correct response, ergo they are stoopid. That's perhaps a crude synopsis, but you've got the link up there; feel free to read for yourself.
Anyway, the author of the article, one William Saletan, takes umbrage at the conclusion of this study and at the nature of the study itself. There are a few apparently fair-minded readers who agree with his conclusion, but it's entertaining and telling to see the rabble of Slate readers jumping on the bandwagon this specious study lurched into motion, so eager are they to find conservatives dimwitted and therefore a waste of carbon.
I did enjoy the following statement from a reader:
The study can reach the conclusion "liberals are smarter than
conservatives" only by making the sort of unscientific, intuitive, and ultimately indefensible leap of faith which science should never make. There is a lot more to adaptive intelligence than can be measured by a few minutes of button-pushing.
The funny thing to me about this is that since there were periods of great cooling and planet-wide tropical heat before the advent of upright bi-pedal humanoids and their attendant SUVs, then how do they justify their intuitive and ultimately indefensible leaps of faith that scientifically "prove" that we have cause global warming? And if in their omniscience they can make these conclusions about a system so enormous as the entire planet, then what's the big whoop about relegating a mere human creature with whom they disagree to the trashheap?
In the comments section for this post, DBA Dude directed me to a clever Dilbert blog post on the same "news" story. Funny!