Pappas begins: "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."
Klansmen display their affinity for the days of the Confederacy, February, 19, 2010. (photo: Ian Butterbaugh/Media Matters)
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
28 January 12
here'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.
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. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]
"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. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]
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. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]
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.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |











Comments
Many Churches, Temples in this country do exchange programs with other Churches etc with children from all different backgrounds to live at other homes during summer sometimes a whole year to experience what it is like for the other side, to experience life with a family.
Many of these children have been from other Countries.
I went to school and many girls from other Countries boarded at my school. It was not free. Some of these girls were from Rich families some from very poor. Fact was we boarded together, it was a good thing but sad also for many.
Some of the girls and their other members were seperated as the family was under attack. I learned to stop thinking about myself...too bad American all do not learn to do this
"In any situation there are more stupid people than intelligent ones." --- Ken Kesey
"Against stupidity, even God is helpless." --- Goethe
"Not all Conservatives are stupid ... but most stupid people are conservatives" (And I cannot recall who that is attributed to.)
I don't believe it has taken a study to 'let us know' as much as the study has now offered some confirmation to what many of us have suspected to be fact for quite some time.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens," which means "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Schiller (Talbot, in: The Maid of Orleans)
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." -John Stuart Mill,
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!
our future is at stake, really at stake
The purpose of commenting on Posts is to offer opinions which may reinforce a comment or criticize it. You do make sweeping generalizations which in logic is regarded as "illogical". You are very passionate about your political beliefs which is good but you really need to develop your reflective skills. Sorry if I have offended you but an authentic dialogue consists of free discourse and if a person is open-minded and has the desire to improve their cognitive processes and writing skills; there is much to be learned from a good critic. On the other hand, if a person is defensive and assumes they have nothing to learn or reflect on, they will remain static in their thinking because they assume they already know all there is to know. Read the 3rd paragraph prior to the end of the article.
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICVAN !!
our future is at stake
Your sweeping generalizations "Never Vote Republican!!" (& others)defy the very basis of logic which I've taught, and need to be critiqued so you can reflect upon how you might make your case more effective and believable.I do not know how old you are, Barbara K but I am of the opinion that you are much too old for me to regard you as a child. Student, yes. Child, no.
"If you don't like our comments" sounds weird also either you are many people or you are telling others how we feel.
I usually agree with your comments but this one is a bit strange.
Vote any way you want, but then Live with it
Actually our future is at stake(and in peril) no matter which party you vote for! Read Glann Greenwald's "With Liberty and Justice for Some" and you will see why voting for either party is a waste of time. Money control - intelligence, or the lack of it, plays a minor roll.
By the way, you can fix stupid - the only hitch is that there's a 25 to life sentence attached to its eradication.
Racism. Conservatism. Ism. Anyism. Less broad people tend to find comfort in numbers. The flip side to the above story would be that the fascist conservative is more evolutionarily fit because the tight knit army ant style is mankind's most characteristic trait. And War, of course. And we need them to hold us together. They are the temporal ballast of our America and the elite knows how to move them.
Liberalism has its idiot pool as well. Myself, for example. I have gone over to Paulism because of who he is. He is a physician who sees his nation sick and sees the illness and its major locus and offers to do something about it. No one will say that he is dishonest. We already KNOW about all the rest of them. What is the law in New York? One lie from a witness and we may disregard all testimony? Hmmm. They're all guilty, multiple felonius counts. Except Ron Paul. We need to follow the money and Ron Paul will show us how. The elite may crash the economy on purpose to destroy Paul if they cannot arrange his personal demise. But they will then be dispatched completely. We'll see.
The Peace Corps is a good example. It helps you understand what other people live through and how they can find joy under situations that most Americans could never tolerate.
I was a Goldwater type in high school because most of my classmates were republicans. (My county was the only county in the state that went for Goldwater.) Then I went to a liberal college where my convictions were challenged and there came a point where I couldn't support them rationally, so I changed.
"There are possibilities to change by being exposed to different situations."
..."my convictions were challenged and there came a point where I couldn't support them rationally, so I changed."
Instead, the so-called "Christian" right is almost wholly involved with BC stories from the Old Testament. It IS much simpler that way. Often, God would say, in effect, That tribe over there is NOT like you. Their valley would make a nice piece of land for your settlement so go over there and kill those people. Even babies. They are nothing to you!
MUCH easier to deal with than Jesus's demanding. "Love your neighbor as yourself." And if you pass a man bleeding in the ditch, you better stop and help him -- even if he is not like you at all!
Such thinking is WAY too much trouble -- and too generous -- for a "conservative" mindset. Not of our tribe? Our skin-color? Our RELIGION? HAH! What's a bomb for, anyway?
I am tired of people talking about the Bible it was a Diary written by man, that is all. If we really evaluate the life of the people in the Bible, most were pure examples of the Sins...Venial, Mortal and etc.
The same people who bring up Bible seem to believe all the Holy Books/Diaries were theirs alone. When the Tribes moved on, their children migrated they all took parts of that same diary with them so for the Faiths that came from those who wandered that Storybook was given different names.
I have read so many books on past, on civilizations and most people still have no clue on how this could be. So stupidity has been passed down thru centuries, people only see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear. Jesus demanded Absolutely Nothing of us. He gave us enlightenment, what we learned...certainly questionable in the World today no less on here.
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in ANY sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Muslims; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mohammed-ian nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Muslims; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mohammed-ian nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Treaty of Tripoli [1796] presented and endorsed by JOHN ADAMS, American patriot, founding father, signer of the Dec of Independence, president of the USA (1796-1801) and ARCH-CONSERVATIVE (authored alien and seditions act)! (international treaty supercedes all laws passed by the states...us gov't 101, people!)
No one is suggesting that people who actually earn their money should have it taken from them. The thing that upsets decent people is how too many of the uberrich rightwingers got their money. And how they manipulate the legal system (buying legislators) to keep more than they deserve while working people get the shaft.
politicians. There are exceptions, such as Bernie Saunders and I believe Elizabeth Warren, Black and white, all or nothing thinking has serious flaws in argumentation.
We want to tax the rich to pay down the debt caused by their tax cuts that have never been paid for to this day, it's not very complex.
I am a firm believer in political equality & direct or "true" democracy (not what we have today & despite its limitations) yet I always struggle with the reality that most people DO want to be led & controlled (Nietzsche's herd). For Socrates, true democracy was an amateur form of government for the ignorant masses. this study seems to legitimate the idea that the intelligent should rule/be enfranchised/be the elite (thus Plato's Republic). Ultimately (& arguably) a totalitarian system, but might it not really be for the best? Should stupid people have the political right to fuck this country up? I don't mean joe 6-pack (although en masse they do enough damage). Take stupid people with simplistic world views & give them money & other forms of power (W for example), what happens? Creating rule by the intelligent would be painful problematic, & revolutionary, yet???
Maybe there's so easy answer & maybe I'm just a dumb neanderthal grasping for simplistic solutions.
Guns, Germs & Steel : The Fates of Human Societies
By: Jared Diamond
Exactly.
Which is why they always look at problems backwards, upside down or inside out. Example, the now infamous remark of Newt's that Obama is the Food Stamp President. Those that take it as actually meaning anything have not taken a couple of moments to think it through.
This is the left wing bane. We tend to think things through and not react to the sound bite.
I personally do not believe the brain is well balanced. There are doorways and compartments we have so much data in. Sorry we obtain data before we even enter this world...no scientist has even proved that nor can they. If you autopsy someone do you really think the well balanced brain is obvious compared to the mediocre one? Yes tell me about those elecrodes and all the tests. Then it would seem that you believe all tests by Science are true and factual...that is very scary.
Do you know where the brain gets its messages from? Do you know which organ is the largest producer of messages to the brain. You do realize that we use almost none of the senses we have so much of our brain is never awakened because we have become so lazy. Our ancestors, tasted, smelled, felt, their skin sent messages we cannot imagine.
Our Brain in this century is robotized so when the Einstiens come they are looked upon as Gifted. Believe ourselves not to be, sad part of our Evolution. Animals learn still by using their senses and ability to evaluate situations. Problem is we have material weapons now not that we are the Hunter any longer. We are just robots, sheeple, whatever because we chose to be.
Our whole approach to information is stunted and unable to address even the most basic of questions, and this is why the conservative movement is impotent, quite like a dead language. I very much doubt America(and THE WORLD) will be able to move forward in our current paradigm, a paradigm that is narrowly focused on economic growth and has a illusory system of wealth creation, where monetary wealth has value? What is that value?
How we as a nation are going to be able to move forward and ascend in "our current paradigm" is very troublesome because it is the deficits in our educational system & dependence on computers rather than investigative, reflective, analytical thinking, & our obsession with wealth & power that has brought us to an age that can best be described as unenlightened, uninspired, ill-informed and lacking in problem solving skills. This is most apparent in our politicians & government leaders who seem unable to see the forest for the trees. They lack innovation & commitment,
Capn Canard, You are my hero! We are living in a time when we seem to have gone backwards regarding "enlightenment" and downwards regarding comprehension of "values". This may be why we no longer seem to have or value heroes.
Do we have children and turn them over to Teachers? I believe if we did we may actually have some good kids.
Sorry problem with Education is the Parents, Family and People we surround them with, materials we have at home, videos, tv. That is what they know from infancy until we give them over for everyone else to do our job.
Conservatives, Democrats who Vote Party only are not intelligent. I believe in support but there is nothing wrong with voting for the right candidate, looking at new Parties, backing local citizens...
If we do not teach our children to question, than they will only follow. That teaching starts from the first toy, first game we play with them.
This is the most important question that should be asked in a school room & home.
You rock, Girl Friend!
Democrats Pretending that the Klan that they created and supported for 150 years was not theirs, Pretending that their collectivist thinking - that is deeply embraced and an absolute philosophical requirement for racism (portrayed even in this article as branding all conservatives as low brow haters) is a non issue.
Racism is necessarily collectivist - the values, accomplishments , dreams of individuals are ignored and replaced by the collective branding that 'they are all like' fill in the blank.
When will the collectivist understand one of the great republicans who pointed out that he dreamed of a day when people will be judged individually by the content of their character and not collectively by the color of their skin?
Just a suggestion: In the future you will probably want to refrain from calling the kettle black!
This looks like another attempt to brand Democrats with the kind of thinking we are all sick of hearing from Republicans/Teapartiers.
It doesn't fit Democrats or liberals I know at all. In fact, we are so diverse that we don't ever know what to call ourselves. We never agree. We can't please the whole panorama. But the one thing we do have in common, in my opinion, is that we are open to new information. We can take it in without being stressed by the effort, mostly. We have the tools to research it and make informed decisions. And, most importantly, we can change our behavior if need be.
This article does lend support to my assertion. And for me, it jibes with my experiences. Even the caveats which are the ideas that keep me from depending entirely on profiling. But it is terribly hard some days. The thing this article really helps with is deciding who are truly stupid and who are treasonous. The smarter people whipping the less intelligent into frenzies with lies and hate language are betraying their own Country.
fair nuff
"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”
For more evidence that the right wing is authoritarian, let me offer the fundies themselves who want to set up a "christian" government where they will decide what god wants and will broke no opposition. Also, note that the hierarchy of the Catholic church, an authoritarian organization if there ever was one, has a surfeit of right wing types.
Get a grip - the left Right is theater for fools - the dynamic with meaning is Freedom vs tyranny.
But a good comment on the web brings Ayn Rand into the forefront of defining it.
Amazing it takes me a second to punch in these words and get answers
side note: The klan is the child of democrats, do your own research.
But far more important is grasping the difference between the philosophy of real individual rights vs phony collectivist gang rights.
You do not have rights because your black or white or asian or christian or atheist or muslim or ... Rights exist as inherent property of your individual existence.
Inherent rights are individual - they exist with or without government. Inherent rights cannot be granted by government, but like any common thug government can take them away. Once your right to life is removed - your dead. No thug, no gang, no government can give it back. Legitimate government protect inherent rights.
Not only the generalization-collectivist comment I miscomprehended but all your comments which worsen as you pontificate on them are totally indigestible and quite obnoxious.
Perhaps you speak of the so-called "Southern Democrats"? Lincoln was a Republican, and the people of the Confederate states embraced the *opposite* political party, quite by choice. Those Southern Democrats included the klan, to be sure.
JFK, as President, and RFK as Attorney General (both Democrats) fought the racist policies in the South. Perhaps it was this effort that cost them their lives, but we may never know for sure. Certainly it was what cost MLK his life shortly after he spoke the words you quotes (above).
Lyndon Johnson, by signing the Civil Rights Act of 1974, *lost the South* for generations, where they now vote with the Republicans. As the post above points out, the parties have flip-flopped. One has to include these nuances of History to make a cogent argument among those of us who have lived, and participated in that History.
Following LBJ's Voting & Civil Rights Acts of 1964-5, the Southern Klan and all of its pecker-wood, Dixiecrat supporters became "Democrats for Reagan". They bailed out of the Democratic party and traipsed over to the GOP - where they were so welcomed that they hung around, highjacked the Republican party and control it to this very day!
Your reference to MLK, jr was noted, but - unfortunately - it was missed by most reader.
Good riddance!
Following LBJ's Voting & Civil Rights Acts of 1964-5,//
When the democrats FINALLY came to the table that had been set 100 years prior
and ya might check out LBJ
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021406.html
You are truly a piece of work. There is a post below by AdamC that gives a sensible & accurate historical overview of Dems, KKK & Repubs. You say this article brands "all conservatives as low brow haters" when it clearly includes that there are "very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals." But I would agree w/ the article that prejudice comes mainly from the Right; but not necessarily because of simple stupidity but because of an upbringing through generations that clings to antiquated stereotypes that were overt & glorified in earlier years that promoted, e.g., racial supremacy, Victorian-era patriarchy, an "old time" religion, THE rugged individual, unregulated, parasitical profiteering, along w/ the inevitable consequences culminating as the "natural order of things." I don't doubt that education level plays a role, but heritary traits & upbringing intially mold the mind. And it's not just a lower educated group that can be prejudice. A wealthy individual can be, and has been, prejudiced sometimes underneath a veneer of sophistication. Again, you're obssessed w/ that word "collective" w/ not a clue of understanding its meaning; but it's again that 19th century thinking or "thinking." Repeat this slowly, several times: "By nature, humans are both individual & collective." To deny this is to deny reality. I suspect you've been a long reality denier & that has led to your irrational statements.
Again you intenially distort in quite a glib & cynical manner, & again deny reality. You're implying that MLK was a Repub when of course he was none of the kind. Then you do the Orwellian twist again w/ his slogan: Of course, you knowingly added the words "individually" & "collectively." Your 19th century tunnel vision has caused you to be quite discredited considering your lack of understanding of certain human traits & their meanings; along w/ trying to be distortingly clever. I & many here already know your slick banter, thus the evident wave of thumbs down. You keep on tickin but you've certainly taken a lickin. Back to the 19th century w/ you.
Rights are inherent in the individual - denying them or granting them based upon what gang they are a member of is collectivist.
For example, they are the ones who are trying to prevent killing gays as being a hate crime and who are trying to deny gays their rights as human beings to have a family (both marriage and adoption). They are the ones denying rights to African Americans and Hispanics by preventing them from voting. They are the ones denying rights to women by taking control of their reproduction. So by what you say, you must agree that it is the right wing that is the collectivists.
Saying MLK was a Repub is like saying a KKK member was a Black Panther. There are individual rights & collective rights. Individual rights allow an individual to make personal choices, to express personal, specific talents & opinions. Collectivism allows an individual to contribute, along w/ other individuals, to a collective cause/endeavor, usuing his/her specific talents/opinions & combined w/ others' talents/opinions to become a potential force to e.g., work for change, win a sporting event, win an election, operate a business, etc. And it can be helpful when there is the sharing of the burden or strength in numbers. Further, there's a better chance for equal participation, say under socialist rule, as opposed to say an unequal relationship between capital & labor under capitalist rule. Individualism & collectivism can be separate and/or together. But regardless, both are an inherent reality that can promote rights specifically &/or generally. Only an irrational denier would deny this. Far from being correct, you are a DENIER. As a RUGGED individual, you have the right to go it alone, but literally; no collective help, e.g., no business or social connections. Your time machine will leave soon. Better get on board, & set the dial for a date in the 19th century.
You have an interesting definition of "collectivist," one not shared by either the left-wing inventors of the term or most of their right-wing foes.
And an even more interesting definition of "republican," consideriung that the quote comes from Martin Luther King Jr., who's usually identified as a Democrat (and, by his right-wing enemies, as a "collectivist," meaning Marxist, as well).
- John Stuart Mill
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/conservative.html#ixzz1knCtEQZI
I learn a lot here. I did not know that Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican until you pointed that out. It's a memorable and important tidbit to remember and embrace.
Foolish People think KKK was first Hate Group. Then you are all obviously still in Jr High School. Hate Groups started within Cave Men. Greed, Survival, Jealousy all the original sins started Hate. They started in the Garden went forward.
USA had a Religious hate group on those first Boats, in fact two or three...Religious hatred of Heathens, English Hatred/Greed, Settlers These groups went forward and Colonized other areas, some might have been squashed in one area but they left and settled elsewhere. I do not believe any one group started the KKK except Hate Mongers and they were condoned then as now by Churches, Temples etc.
I do not believe at one time they were called either name. Democrats were Republicans if you go back and read your history book. Stay in School
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians
Also chack into George Lakoff's work.
A thing to keep in mind is that the way intelligence is measured it will tend to favor those who think more flexibly in problem-solving. There is also a strong emotional component to cognition. As such, attitudes, beliefs, and emotional habits or problems will directly affect 'effective intelligence' and what is commonly measured and though of as intelligence, although the term is greatly underdefined when analyzed.
I've found that much of what is called 'conservative' is not conservative, in the truest sense, but authoritarian. It is common for 'liberals' to be authoritarian -- they simply rigidly believe in the 'liberal ideology', rather being 'liberal' or flexible in their cognitive processing.
Naturally, people who are intellectually challenged -- less intelligent in general -- tend to gravitate towards 'conservatism' and authoritarianis m because it's easier to follow rules and rigid principles than to do critical thinking.
When one makes a highly opinionated survay and pretends to turn it in to fact - it simply is crap to support a political bias.
I can make a survey: and it would be crap as well.
People have a right to world class health care. .. and I can ask the same question another way ...
people have the right to force some one else (enslave them) to pay for any medical care they want.
might that questioning bias on the exact same issue cause vastly different outcomes?
A better question is "What health care should every member of the society have by the rights the society agrees on, and how should that system work?".
Terms, including 'conservative' and 'liberal' are under-defined, and refer to radial categories, and that's problematic but is not the same as being meaningless or fraudulent.
I'm afraid that existence and the world are not actually very simple at all -- which is one aspect of why 'conservatives' have a hard time dealing with them. Conservatism is good for carrying cultural values and tribal knowledge down the generations, and reacting to straightforward issues such as 'should we run when we see a tiger?", but it isn't very good at dealing with complexity or sophisticated knowledge.
The other day I overheard a conversation amoung 5 year olds concerning the Bell's choice of the Beast in Beauty and the Beast. One of the girls said she wouldn't ever like the Beast because he was ugly. The other two girls said they liked the beast because he turned out to be nice. I wonder....
is superficial and the second is heart centered. My heart sings
for those two who truly see. My compassion goes to the other who
at this time lives in darkness.
Some may be hopeless but some may be just waiting. But you find out right away if you offer a hand.
If our politicians were more like the beast who is an icon for being true to your internal nature as opposed to using appearances and spinning rhetoric to garner votes, our world would be a better
place.
1) The Democratic party of 150 years ago, which while it didn't start the KKK certainly made use of it, is not the Democratic party of today--which in turn is not the Democratic party that emerged from the Depression, which was really two parties--the Northern New Deal coalition and the Southern Dixiecrats. When the Northern wing of the party started a serious commitment to black civil rights, the Southern wing tried to split off in 1948, then left in droves to the GOP after 1964-5 with the passage of the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, which were pushed through by a coalition of Northern Dems and liberal Republicans. With Nixon's "Southern Strategy (crafted by Roger Ailes among others) the white South abandoned the Dems and went solid GOP. Thus the very basis of the modern GOP is opposition to equal rights for people of color--even if not all Republicans are consciously racist. The continual overt use of racist appeals by *all* the major GOP candidates in the current campaign makes this very clear. Meanwhile most of the Dems in Congress have been bought off by the same corporations that own and operate today's GOP.
Bottom line: history is continual change. Clinging to labels and meaningless catch-all terms like "collectivism" obscures clear thinking.
Obscures clear thinking -- I see it as authoritarian vs freedom.
I see no virtue of big government republicans over big government democrats - we cant afford either.
It sounds like you're shapeshifting your argument a little. You intially berate the article for saying that ALL on the Right are low thinkers, while it did say that some cons are intelligent & some libs not-so-bright. It wasn't totally B/W. You continued to take a side berating Leftists for harboring the equivilent of a "collective" type of Stalinism. And that's wrong. And you continued all the way through w/ your it's individualist or collectivist & nothing in between fantasy. You called MLK a Repub. Now, you're not for clinging to labels. Does that mean you'll let go of your obsession w/ the word collective? I don't think so. While gov. still exists, why not put it to positive use? Using funds to "promote the general welfare" as it says in the U.S. constitution. Public education, public healthcare, a right to housing, a decent, living wage &/or profit-sharing job, etc. These are needed for humans no matter what for survival & to prosper & thus can be considered rights. Meanwhile, you're left alone w/ your 100% individualism, the illusion that one man is an island.
That said, I contend that there IS an easily demonstrable correlation between smart-vs-dumb and liberal-vs- conservative;
Generally, when making decisions, liberals seek a consensus. They are willing and able to recognize that there are always several ways to solve any one problem. Once acknowledged, there is too much talk & confusion and too little constructive action - especially when trying to reach a consensus with conservatives.
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend toward hard line orthodoxy - my way or the highway - and from that narrow perspective they are right (pun intended). They avoid considering alternative solutions to common problems, because that puts too many balls in the air and that, in turn, threatens their tediously built & jealously guarded status quo.
It takes much less intelligence to adopt & hold a pre-fabricated, special interest position than it does to think critically about all possible alternatives . . . and to arrive logically at that which works best for the general good for all.
Excellent post, maddave. Good explanation for those who adopt such a simplistic mentality ("my way or the highway"): it's so much easier to go along with black-and-white (no pun intended) thinking than to admit there are many gray areas and NO simple answers. I have long felt that masses of people simply do not want to think. It's too hard, too much trouble, so they go along with ideologies that play to their fears and long-held beliefs without really looking at them.
There was another article about why people vote against their own interests. This piece goes a long way toward explaining that -- they can't reason well enough to understand what they are doing and realize they are being manipulated.
May I suggest that you did deeper into history than a few sound-bites and libertarian ideological platitudes?
According to his niece..MLK and his father were both Republicans:
By Dr. Alveda C. King – Niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
In 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy defeated sitting Vice President Richard Nixon in the bid to become president. The black vote swung the tide! My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., or “Daddy King”, was a Republican and father of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican. Daddy King influenced a reported 100,000 black voters to cast previously Republican votes for Senator Kennedy even though Kennedy had voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law. Mrs. King had appealed to Kennedy and Nixon to help her husband, and Nixon who had voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Law did not respond.
but that does nothing to diminish the genius he has shown on the world when it comes to individual rights and equal treatment under the law and peaceful civil disobedience to bad laws.
Well, an actual intelligent comment, partly. Other than that, given your previous comments, you really don't know MLK that well; and you're certainly not in the same league w/ him.
That's all we know and all we need to know.
Hmmm...I dropped out of MENSA because of the right wing bias, including racism, expressed in the local meetings. A couple of us tried to express the left wing side of things, but we got bullied so much that I dropped out. Your statement and my rebuttal are both anecdotal and don't serve much purpose....doncha think?
You want anecdote? I give you anecdote: some years ago - before i got better - I was essentially excommunicated by the local Unitarian Church for my open support of a prominent republican. So much for the d clean fresh air of open debate!
However, as a an agnostic Friend, I sometimes envy those truly faithful (Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, etc, etc, - choose one) who have their belief system solidly in order; who "walk the walk" and who show true compassion for their fellow humans and for our Earth. . . . . . Of course my envy diminishes drastically when one of them kills a Doctors who for performing legal procedures with which he/she disagrees . . . or publicly asks others to pray for the death of certain judges and public officials.
Conservatives have an idealistic version of reality where they constantly blame an individual for their circumstances. While certain liberals fail to hold individuals accountable for their plight. I will admit I have had numerous amounts of both bad decision to accompany some bad luck and also realize others have had it through no fault of their own more horrendous luck than I can ever conceive of it.
One size does not fit all and you got to treat each person on an individual basis. Most people's fate is neither entirely bad luck nor bad decisions but a combination of both. But the well off do have a greater margin of error and far less accountabiliy !!!Unfortunatel y some equate being short sided narrow minded and passionately unimaginative as being a stark realist.
I think we also need to avoid belittling those with a different perception, it only separates us more.
But it's also important to honestly look at and come to terms with this. These attitudes are being used to 'indoctrinate' others and for decades now under the right, to strip people of civil, privacy, reproductive and human rights.
Our future depends on understanding and correcting this problem and dealing with it, up front.
Yea verily, I agree!
John Dean's book, "Conservatives without Compassion" deals with these issues.
If you actually believe this statement then you have not been paying attention.
Some time ago President Eisenhower said "Beware of the military Industrial Complex." No one has been paying any attention since then. The only real difference between Republican and Democrat is the spelling. In case you haven't noticed the banks and corporations are still getting everything they want. Unless you can show me when or where the crooks on Wall Street that caused this "Recession" are spending time in jail. To the best of my knowledge they all are still running the asylum called Washington DC. Orders come down from "K" Street to "OUR" Government and laws are written as directed.
'Nuff said . . . . .
1. Democrats have brought us every human, civil, privacy and reproductive right we've enjoyed over the past 5 decades.
2. Yes, special interests have taken over the country and many Democrats are getting bought off, too.
3. The Democrats can be brought back in line if our election system is changed and special interest money is taken out of politics.
4. I would rather deal with a Democrat any day over a far right Republican -- which most of them seem to be these days They are overseeing the militarization of our police force, stripping Americans of every right we have and putting the wealth and power of the US solely into the hands of the 1%.
"Nuff said...
to profit "Big Pharma and Insurance companies. "Living wages" are being deflated by our defense budget, our tax structure and sending jobs overseas,and political candidates being indebted to WS political contributors which encourage all of the above. As far as "A good education for our kid's with clean air" which should be the top priority,it is currently as elusive as grasping for straws. It is not high on the priority list or an important MO of either party. Republicans and Democrats are battling over things they believe will bring in votes & contributions. We need a fearless political candidate who operates above the fray to tackle the really important issues; such as the quality of life and the future of our children and our nation.
I grew up (1940' 50's) in a fairly out-of-the-way small town in the Southern Scottish "Borders" with but a few dark skinned or foreign inhabitants but they, including the owners of the one Chinese restaurant, were totally integrated IF THEY WANTED TO BE -my first independent client as a fledgling architect was an Italian ("Iti"!??) owner of two cafes and a fish-'n-chip shop. We had our own rhyming slang for them all but then we "slagged' each other mercilessly too, long before "PC" was ever thought of. Now I believe that in England, they even have an ASB ("Anti-Social Behavior") clause for which anybody not being conformist can be arrested if the cops think they are out of line enough. We have Blair's so-called "New Labor" to thank for that!
The closest I can figger is that one can "Choose to be dumb", or Racist, or hateful and pass it on to kids or impressionable people. I don't think you can call David Duke "Dumb", or even Newt Grinch, who'd like to colonize the Moon in the name of Gawd knows what!
My experience in the South is that the more ambitious middle classes "Choose" to perpetrate the segregationist attitudes into class as well as racial prejudices for their own ends: I've personally confronted two D.A's in Kentucky for their comfortable and regular use of the word "Nigger".
It's never easy to encapsulate simply.
Because the Wechsler tests included non-verbal items (known as performance scales) as well as verbal items for all test-takers,... Form I of the WAIS [Wexler Adult Intelligence Scale--there's one for Children also] surpassed the Stanford-Binet tests in popularity by the 1960s.[2]
Wechsler defined intelligence as "... the global capacity of a person to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment."
If you apply that criteria to somebody like the Newt, you may discover that he ain't so bright after all, as Chris Matthews would have us believe.
Morality, ethics, grandiose motives, have nothing to do with intelligence. Not even followers can regularly be deemed unintelligent. It is complicated because the mind is easily influenced.
Conservatives have an idealistic version or reality where they constantly blame an individual for their circumstances. Where certain liberals fail to hold individuals accountable for their plight. I will admit I have had numerous amounts of both bad decision to accompany some bad luck and also realize others have had it through no fault of their own more horrendous luck than I can ever conceive of it.
One size does not fit all and you got to treat each person on an individual basis. Most people's fate is neither entirely bad luck nor bad decisions but a combination of both. But the well off do have a greater margin of error and far less accountabiliy !!! Being Short sided narrow minded and passionately unimaginatives does equate with a a stark realist . I make all kinds of typos so often I might be posting the same response twice. But link on the yahoo link and it seems conservatives can neither survive criticism or own up to their mistake. If you notice Obama unlike Bush was able to admit mistakes
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/120125_eyes.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
I have an acquaintance who prides herself on being a world traveler: from the perspective of 5-star hotels, AC limos, and a private yacht. Contrast that to the backpack trekker staying in hostels and with locals. Who is the more enlightened world traveler?
My own prejudice is that upon entering a home with overflowing bookshelves I automatically think "Aha..liberal"
It's lots of fun using the opposite sex for a user name and watching the assumptions pop up. Alas, I give myself away.
Why is it those who are the first to accuse others of being racist ... are apparently:
1. Racist (often self-loathning) and
2. 'Pull the race card' (claiming some 'moral authority' to bully people they deem 'inferior') and
3. Are powemad micro-managers (AKA meddling in everything)?
The 'DixieCrats' proped-up every democrat / 'left-wing':
administration,
house and
senate - for over 100-years, until ... WACO.
Suffice to say, when the first thing on someone's mind is racism and they start accusing people of being racist - you need not look any farther to find one. Moreover - censorship and denial of history are amongst the other nasty tricks such types embrace. --infohiway
The Dixiecrats began to join the republicans after the Democrats passed and Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, a very long time before WACO. You will notice that the Act wasn't passed with the help of the Dixiecrats or the republicans.
And trying to ignore the evidence that the right wing is much more prejudiced than the left wing isn't going to fly. Playing word games loses every time to evidence. Check out the studies done on the TPs concerning racism.
We watched the Tea Party rallies against health care reform with thugs walking around with racist signs and threats (bringing loaded GUNS to the rallies.
Give me a break!
Hey whipping boy, your rant is semivague & yet revealing. Those three points ironically lean toward the Right, historically, e.g., in the 1890s overtly & up through today, although more as a gray area. The Left hasn't historically seen Blacks, e.g., as inferior, quite the contrary. Repubs & at least some Dems in the 1890s, e.g., thought that nonwhite peoples were unfit for self-goverment, as well as being inferior, subhuman.
I suggest that next election for Congress you guys forget about Republicans & Democrats and vote only for ethnic American East Asians. That should sort you out!
Sorry reiverpacific but my genetic makeup and funny bone has been strangely affected by the (known)500 years my ancestors lived on the Scottish Borders and what's worse, at one time they were Covenanters too!
Hogwash! There are IQ tests and IQ tests. There are many different areas in which one can be tested & labeled bright or dumb, and I'd like to cite my favorite example: Barbara Streisand. She is not noted for an extremely high IQ, and some even argue to the contrary. Personally I am not privy to her overall IQ profile; however, when she opens her mouth to sing, who can deny her "genius" in that one isolated area?
On the the hand, I've know individuals (in MENSA) who have +/- 150 IQ's; who can tell you how many angels can dance on the had of a pin but who, practically, can't find their own ass with both hands. Nuclear plants across the whole USA are full of these guys!
How many Israelis are Semites? Very few.
How many Gaza residents are Semites?
Virtually all of them.
Is killing Palestinian civilian:
men,
women and
children -
ANTI-SEMITIC OR NOT?
Now what? To another topic (after you couldn't back the previous ones)? I thought at one time that Israelis & Palestinians had the same semitic roots, although the word antisemitic has become THE phrase against antiJewish oppression, & understandably, given, e.g., the Nazi Holocaust.
Anti-semetic means Jew-hater.
Anti-Jewish oppression is how those of us who claim to be without prejudicial feelings regarding Jewish people and why we writhe at the misinterpretati on of the term, due to the Nazi Holocaust when Jews were slaughtered & tortured like animals. Liberals pride themselves on being anti-racism, anti-homophobic, anti-gender inequality, & they should be against anti-semetism. It is very disturbing when posters on a liberal post make derogatory remarks which demonstrate bigotry & hatred for any of the above groups; all have suffered from bigotry in the past,
After reading subsequent posts, I think that I can conclude then that there are different tribes or ethnic semetic groups, e.g., Jews & Arabs. How ironic then that one is oppressing another through an ultrantionlist myth of religious supremacy base on "biblical prophecy" for " the Chosen People." I will have to clarify that I'm not antisemetic, but I'm also not a blind, apologist akin to an AIPAC lobbyist supporting Isaeli ultranationalis m which the Israeli Right in particular is fond of, e.g., trying to annex more territory & increasing settlements.
while I believe, that people who are prejudist, are often poorly educated. They are also insecure, afraid that these "others" are taking, what SHOULD be coming to them.
Right now I am VERY worried that the actions of the Israeli government is putting ALL JEWS in serious danger. Iam definitely NOT antisemitic.
Denmark and Holland were the only countries, who actively protected Jews and helped them escape during WWII, at enormous risk to the people involved in the rescue. Jews were never persecuted in Denmark, so I am brought up well.
Now The government in Israel is making life incredibly difficult for the Palestinians. I have read about Salam Faiyad (not sure of the spelling) The prime minister is doing an impressive job in the West Bank together with Mahmud Abbas, it seems to no avail.
The Israelis are treating them, the way they were treated. THEY are now the oppressors. Netanyahu does not want a TWO State solution, and since the Palestinian have large families they will soon be the majority, and SECOND
class citizens.
HOW is that going to work??
Unfortunately when you voice concerns like this, you are often attacked and called an anti Semite. As I stated I'm NOT, but I do worry that Jews world wide will be in danger, because of it.
Comments anybody??
Actually I am quite happy to be a hapa. I think it is challenging and exciting. Definitely not boring! Hapa people in my opinion are also quite sexy as well.
May also take a look at the fact that these haters were from Tennessee and from Rebel soldiers wanting to change things. This movement flourished and swept the South but it has a great hold in the West...so you see the iq...has flowed along with the hate.
It has had an upsurt since the 60's along with a different 1%er and other WhiteSupremist Groups again feeding hate and living off fears.
The first were hatred of Blacks and Northerners but have since seeded into anyone they have an attitude about...Catholics, Jews, ... Matters not which party...both were at fault, yes Republicans tried to change in early 1900's but the Democrats led the real fight later. The Monster is still alive...Priests, Ministers were as much a part of this then as now.
in which he mentions racism explicitely a few times and also gives exposition and background which I can use to buttress the following statement:
The intelligence of the 'conservatives' has often been that cunning of the predatory social animals which hunt in packs (even being cannabalistic -- chimps have been known to do this, and also various insects).
Such human predators pose as truly social beings in a more universal sense than they are for purposes of their goals -- that, objectively, is less intelligent in that it is significantly more destructive than real social cooperation, even ultimately self-destrucive, but there is some local optimization (in evolutionary terms) so it can work in the short term, propagating that behavior forward in time.
We now reach a point in history where such predation exitentially threatens the entire species, and the environment. If our overall 'cultural intelligence' does not override such relative stupidity and insanity, we are likely done for (it may already be too late).
At least when the flying saucer people come to visit they will see our dead monuments are nicer than those left on Easter Island by that extinct culture.
The IQ questions are devised by highly educated people with their own cultural biases. Thus we may be comparing the highly educated with those who are not, rather than testing for innate stupidity versus innate intelligence.
Maybe "simplistic" beliefs like racism comes not from those with innate inability to "think", but from those whose family and life circumstances deprived them of exposure to different types of people and ideas or whose only exposure to those of other races and ideas came through national media coverage, which is, itself, designed to expose folks to only what is acceptable to the corporate media owners.
Folks who grow up in limited circumstances tend to reflect that in their own attitudes.
In contrast, I think of many Downs'Syndrome people I have met who definitely have limited mental capabilities for complex ideas, but who, generally, treat everyone they met as individuals, to be liked or not liked based on that individual's immediate behaviors. They tend not to generalize as to large groups of people having the same characteristics .
Maybe "stupidity" is curable!
They should have done the study in the state of Arizona. Just look at what is going on in this state, with Governor Jan Brewer she must have a very low IQ because of what is going on with all the crazy laws she is trying to get pasted.
Stupid conservatives will of course fall for the nonsense people like Martinfre spout every single time. Whether Martinfre is a stupid conservative parroting the nonsense or a smarter conservative cynically deliberately misleading people I wouldn't presume to guess.
You're not necessarily giving away any state secrets here you know.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
By the way so called anti-semetism did not lead to WW11.
Secondly, correlation does not mean causation.
Thirdly, while the article says that the study controlled for "education," I wonder how one finds lots of people with sub-80 IQs who have Ph.Ds? Smart people are more likely to have been in heterogenous professional, educational, and social settings, which would tend to be an antidote for prejudice.
Fourth, IQ is partially dependent upon where and how one grew up. So is segregation. IQ is partially dependent upon one's command of language. So is segregation. People with low IQs are probably more likely to have grown up in a socially segregated environment, and people who have grown up in a socially segregated environment are more likely to be racists. But it does not follow that racism is "caused" by a low IQ.
"side note: The klan is the child of democrats, do your own research."
ACTUALLY, the Klan was first formed against Catholics. It was active in the northern states for this purpose first during the early 1900's. This whole discussion of who is smart, dumb, conservative or liberal is down to the point that we must decide if we are going to admit or not that there has been a stealth agenda for years against desegregation. This agenda fed by the conservatives was meant to slowly, but steadily use lies and misinformation campaigns through media to use less-informed, less educated and vulnerable people to create a population explosion in conservative voters. Those people MUST be controlled by media by Fox "News" and constantly fed propaganda to keep them inflamed against their own safety and health and wealth. Conservatives can't win any other way. The concept that if everyone contributes something, and everyone is protected equally, and everyone has equal rights, and religion is separate from government, you have a DEMOCRACY.
While you may be right in a literal sense, you have to understand that low IQ means that person has difficulty with complex, analytical thinking in most cases. Without that ability it is very easy to be targeted and exploited with clever propaganda. Those are the people who find themselves in the grips of those who can convince those low level thinkers to trust politicians who are using those people to vote against their own best interests. What do you think all the conservative 'THINK TANKS" DO ALL DAY?
RSS feed for comments to this post.