Forum Post: Study Links Low IQ and Conservative Ideology
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 28, 2012, 9:47 a.m. EST by GirlFriday
(17435)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
1 comments 5 days ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by factsrfun
7 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by gsw
7 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 months ago by grapes
2 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 4 months ago by rachelodell
2 comments 7 months ago by gsw
2 comments 11 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 2 years ago by grapes
15 comments 2 years ago by gsw
12 comments 2 years ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
This is devisive. You're not going to win anyone over to your beliefs by asserting that they belong to an entire group that has sub-standard IQ. In particular, people immediately go into defensive and turn-off mode when things like this are attempted via some type of study. Even if the study is perfectly true, you have to deal with people where they are and meet them where they are. If a foundation of mutual respect instead of disrespect is established, it's much easier to make progress. Remember, you are trying to win as many people over to your viewpoint(s) as possible in order for the movement to succeed.
I don't usually reveal this in a public arena (because people assume arrogance on my part), but I am a member of Mensa and a progressive liberal Democrat. I never think in terms of low/high IQ when it comes to people. People are who they are. You can't change the basic makeup of who they are (such as IQ), so why even talk about it. Besides that, despite what the data says, people are individuals and I am not prepared to write them off as mentally deficient when I know that many of them, perhaps even a great number of them, are very intelligent people. Studies seem to indicate that conservatives are more inclined to be more fearful of change than liberals, but fear and intelligence do not correlate.
Read it again. It has nothing to do with belonging to an entire group that has a sub-standard IQ.
Copy/Paste from the "study"----- "Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies". The Republicans have traditionally been labeled as having socially conservative ideologies as a group. Again, I assert that individuals that comprise a group are composed of a range of intelligence. As a matter of fact, in the general population of ALL people regardless of age, race, political party, etc., the bell curve is applicable across the board, and the bell curve clearly indicates a wide range of intelligence from the very high to the very low. The majority, about 66%, comprise the bulk of the curve, falling within the range typically labeled as "Normal" (whatever that means).
Bottom line -- think individuals, not large groups.
GF : Re. "Study Links Low IQ and Conservative Ideology", I don't really have any empirical scientific data but anecdotally, emotionally and intuitively ; I do believe that the 'angry and anxious, reactionary right-wing - mindset', is more the result of a closed, blocked or atrophied 'heart centre' and/or possible psychopathy, than anything else.
By this I mean that I think that there is a deficit of mercy, kindness, empathy and compassion rather than a lack of 'intelligence', though you might say that 'Their Emotional Intelligence' is under-developed.
For insights into the above and the general subject matter of this thread, perhaps try to watch : http://watchdocumentary.com/watch/i-psychopath-video_b28f60185.html & alt. link + synopsis ; http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-psychopath/ .
However, with reference to "The Elites" ; 'The 1% of The 1%' ; The 0.01%, these Parasitic Psychopaths are beyond 'The Pale' and they and their unconscionable behaviour are outside my 'compassion zone' !!!
pax, amor et lux ...
Oh boy, not to burst your bubble friday.... but this is not only a false dichotomy, but also the same means of divide and control that is used to manipulate the populace into warring factions.
And it's nothing new as well...
Every few years some study comes up that describes either conservatives or liberals as either smarter or dumber, saner, or crazier, than each other.
It's junk science at best, prejudice and factionalism at worst.
But these studies never hold up to light, each and every time. When rigorous scientific method is applied, then these studies fall apart.
Now, I could just throw out names of people that were die hard conservatives, yet the greatest thinkers, scientists and inventors of history. (Edison, faraday, newton, locke,) But if I did so and yet not provide liberal ones (pascal, jefferson, oppenhiemer, jobs) then even if I disproved your false dichotomy, I'd be in danger of creating my own.
But that is where the whole of the falsity lies, that there is any real differences between conservatives and liberals that cannot be overcome, to ensure and further the common good.
In other words, we want the same things, which is what makes us conservative or liberal.
We want freedom and equality
We want justice to be supreme in the land
We want prosperity to pervade society
And we want mankind to progress to it's highest potential.
We approach problems from different viewpoints, and this lends more to our level of experience and knowledge, than to biology. We do as we know to do, not as a preprogrammed, hardwired collection of biological processes.
So am I surprised that such a report exists? No
I'm more surprised that folks here would buy into it, thus furthering that which separates us, which is anathema to liberalisms origins. For commonality is from where liberalism arrises, and modality is from where conservatism arrises.
Exceptions... "My grandma smoked cigars every day and lived to be 105 y-o when she was hit by a car." ...don't make the rule.
In theory on the chalk board and frozen in time, much of your argument is spot on. If you go into the field and see what has evolved, you will be shocked.
This article in question is just one of many studying the dangerous and damaging effects of the authoritarianism that has taken over the RepubliCON Party, to the point that has diminished it from a legitimate American political party, to what it is now ~ a cult and its Charlie Manson is a few greed-addled people in the 1%. They have long ago abandoned truth, justice and the American Way!
Yes, the corrupt evolution of the RepubliCON Party has attracted push-back with prejudice, with just cause. The Con damage is serious and countering is urgent.
Get out and check it out. Listen to the hate and lie speech blasting on Con-Talk radio, 24/7/365 (which should be rated XXX until it's banned). Listen to the callers. Talk to the people. Fucking scary shit!! And I'm being mild.
Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!
if research science wasn't in need of a government base funding for research,
science might nor keep having to propose their ideas as a better way to build a bomb
And don't forget, we want to deny the possibility that global warming might be exacerbated by human activity. Oh, and we want to deny that a half white half black man could legitimately be president of the US.
Conservatism and conservatives have very little in common.
No, rather conservative pundits and their blind adhearents have nothing to do with conservatism, those folks aren't conservatives, they are neoconservatives and libertarians.
40 years ago those folks were unpallatable, so they relabled themselves as conservatives, they have nothing to do with ordinary hardworking church going folks that identify themselves as conservatives
Edmund Burke would roll over in his grav(y). Seems like conservatives should be a little more vocal in separating themselves from "Conservatives.
I used to call myself a liberal conservative but it was too confusing.
lol, yeah, it can be confusing, sometimes I go by paleoconservative or conservative classic.
And it's because may folks here think that average, ordinary people that self-identify as conservative think automatically that they are just like those folks on the magic talking pictures box, which is far from the truth.
I really hate to jump into your rant there but people with low IQs lack the cognitive ability to use abstract reasoning. Most of our children reach an age (about nine) when they can begin to see things from another persons point of view or put themselves in someone else's shoes. Well, what happens when they lack the capacity to achieve that?
So, studies have shown in the past that racism is linked with less education and interaction as well. So, this shouldn't come as a surprise. In fact, this study suggests that the simple rigid structure of social conservatism is the key here. The difference is that this population doesn't have the ability to become educated. You cannot give these people books or studies or any of these things that you would with normal and higher IQs.
Structure.
Oh, don't take my post as a rant, just as a friendly critique. For you see, this type of study has been done and redone to undermine those of the opposing viewpoint.
Be wary of this type of study, Ann Coulter probably has 10 studies that show that liberals are soft headed.
All it accomplishes is divisions between liberals and conservatives that allows libertarians/neoconservatives/ neoliberals to continue to divide the country, while they continue to loot the treasury, enrich themselves, and generally consolidate power.
Philosophically, liberals and conservatives are 2 sides of the same coin. That is, we care about others.
You may express this in the form of interconnectedness, and I may express this as a call for morality. But our goals are the same, which is the betterment of the community-at-large or world-at-large
Now some with lower IQ's may gravitate toward one or the other ideology. But I would posit that it would depend on what is the more popular, and more reasoned at the time. But, I'm of the mind that even IQ isn't static, and those with lower IQ's can, and do expand their mind when they try.
And on racism, yes some that are less educated can be more racist at times, but so can the highly educated as well.
It was the highly educated in germany that developed very scientific reasonings for racism and genocide. These weren't 'ignorant' or social conservatives that built the gas chambers, but the work of PHD's and a vegetarian named Adolf Hitler.
But what made them act in this manner, was their disregard for their fellow man, which isn't liberal or conservative at all, but is the same enemy we face today, nihilism and hubris.
The cold and callous disregard of fellow humans is what we fight against. And hand in hand with that is the elites thoughts that somehow they are better, smarter, more deserving than their fellow man.
And this is what we also need to guard against within ourselves if we are to achieve a more just and humane society.
But that's just my nickels worth
So since it is impossible to educate conservatives to become liberals what do you propose? Take away their right to vote would seem the logical course. Perhaps force them to live in special places? since they are so stupid a re education camp would be a waste of time. food for thought.
Good questions. But I notice the OP is ignoring it. No surprise. Someone who believes that people that don't conform to their idealogical strait jacket are unintelligent are so bound up in their own ego they can't be bothered.
I think the point was that we need to reach people before it's too late, and indeed, there's no known way to significantly enhance adult IQ (so unfortunately, without a major scientific breakthrough, there is a point where it becomes "too late" to ever be smart). Environment accounts for roughly 40% of IQ. While this means genetics is roughly 60%, the 40% environmental factor makes virtually "all" the difference.
I mean, someone could have a genetic flaw that renders them unable to learn or have any hope of functioning at a normal/high level, but this is the exception, not the norm. Normal IQ is around 100, so crudely speaking, environment accounts for 40 out of 100 points. In other words, it's the difference between a functional mind, and an insurmountable mental handicap/learning impairment.
If someone has an IQ below 90, it's highly unlikely that they could succeed in an undergraduate program, and certainly not in a rigorous subject. Below 110, and it's highly unlikely one can succeed in a graduate program (and again, much less likely they could perform satisfactorily in a rigorous subject at the graduate level). So as uncomfortable as this may be ... we sort of have to deal with our neurobiology as it exists (that is ... unless we can come up with some sort of computer implant, and our society willingly adopts such a thing, which is somewhat scary, but fortunately at this point, not feasible).
Did you read it?
Republicans have consistently shown themselves to be complete retards, I've seen it with my own eyes. There's a reason why Ron Paul keeps stealing the votes at every primary. It's because the other slimeballs the republicans keep offering up are dead on arrival.
Well there is truth to that statement, but then Obama doesn't say anything real either, ... ONLY RP comes close to real truth, but even his 'truth' is status-quo, ..
Never forget folks that the DEM&PUG team's all party together and drink together, they all feed at the same pig trough, ... your tax dollars.
"...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."
We should look deeper into what this study says (but it is a study I'm familiar with ... and btw, it also concludes that atheists have, on average, higher IQ's compared to those who are strongly religious). The way "liberal" is defined is-- expressing altruism towards a wider group (potentially, all of humanity and even animals and the ecosystem) compared to typical evolutionary patterns.
In general, humans have a propensity towards tribalism, whereas those with higher IQ's are more likely to look beyond the tribe they've been indoctrinated to identify with (indoctrination in this context need not comprise a large state and advanced culture, it could be very subtle, primitive, and inadvertent).
This level of altruism would be considered "anti-evolutionary" behavior, as it doesn't conform with evolutionary norms. Nonetheless, in theory, having some segment of the population with higher IQ's would have contributed to our success as a species (but this area of research is very young, and much more data and research is needed before this idea becomes well grounded).
What does this prove ?
Calling conservatives dumb crosses the line and makes us (liberals and/or moderates) look bad. Avoid using ad hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I didn't call them dumb. Did you not read?
I was merely paraphrasing and using a synonym.
Read the article.
No, you did worse, you wrote an inflammatory headline that claimed there was a link between low IQ and "conservative ideology," not making any sort of distinction between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism, for one thing, and second, ignoring the scientists' own disclaimers about correlation not being the same thing as causation.
I took the headline of the article and posted it as the headline of the thread.
Read the article and quit whining. You look silly. We discussed the fact that we were dealing with social conservative below. You are simply being repetitive and over reacting.
only dumb people believe it.. ;)
Only dumb people would say, only dumb people believe it............:)
[Removed]
Alternet.org? That's like quoting a HuffPo piece to the 3rd power.
Yep. Alternet.org. You can take the link directly to Live Science. You can manage that.
And an article about conservative leaning people who are squeamish when it comes to worms and excrement. So I could see how you'd make the leap.
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.
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. 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.
Two studies in the UK and one in the US with a sample of 254 people. You can cling to it if you want.
The author did, it seems, feel obligated to bury a disclaimer about 14 paragraphs deep with the only line in the entire article that removes any opportunity to accuse the author of a political slant, namely:
"...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."
Like I said, you can cling to it if you want. In your own way you're a genius too!
Oddly enough, you didn't even see that they contacted someone who was not even involved in the study. Nice try, Woohoo. You will have to act all persecuted somewhere else.
"...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."
And? You didn't need to feel all persecuted. Didja?
Just because your link points to a study that is predictably 'interpreted' on alternet.org (haha) but actually is explained if you follow the link, don't get your panties all in a wad. You can still pretend you're smarter than the people you fear.
The rabbit hole goes deeper then that woohoo, here is the links and reasoning I provided friday:
Oh boy, ok let me break this down for you blow by blow.
Yesterday you provided a link to science today in fact this link:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/767663/study_links_low_iq_and_conservative_ideology/
Now at that article science today purports a report from Hodson, but gives no title to such report as IQ link to conservatism But they do provide another link to this which I followed:
http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html
again there was no report title, but they did reference the brittish study and quote from it. And Hodson is said to have published it in the journal of psychological review online on january 5 so I went to it here:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/119/1/
Notice it DOESN'T EXIST
but, not to be dismayed, I look for other journalistic sources like this:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/low-iq-socially-conservative-you-might-be-prejudiced-study-says/
And here, they also perport to quote the Hodson report as follows:
In the study, researchers used two forms of intelligence tests and a series of statements to measure social conservative attitudes — statements like “family life suffers if mum is working full-time“ and ”schools should teach children to obey authority,” LiveScience reported. From there, they captured attitudes about race using statements such as “I wouldn’t mind working with people from other races.” Researchers found a correlation between having a low intelligence in childhood and holding prejudicial attitudes in adulthood, and the relationship linking the two was social conservatism. In a second data set, researchers also found a link between poor abstract reasoning skills and homophobia.
Trouble is, this is a direct quote from the british 2004 study
So seeing the propaganda for what it was, I tried in vain to appeal to reason. But, alas, your prejudices are far to deep, so keep on defending a non existent report, and I'll keep on trashing the actual report.
And I'll just chalk it up to the reason propaganda is used, it works.
Or do you actually believe a report like that would magically come out at a time when conservatives and liberals, having much the same goals, need to be working together. Ask yourself.... what's the odds of that.
I don't fear you. :D
That is going to be your problem.
[Removed]
Interesting.
Did FLAKESnews come before the the flakes, or did the flakes come before FLAKESnews?
(R)epelican'ts are flaky either way.
I saw this on TYT.
'Father' and 'Son' Ousted from the Trinity in New Bible Translations
http://news.yahoo.com/father-son-ousted-trinity-bible-translations-003300519.html
that is interesting that they have this study and now this. because the claim that muslims cannot differentiate the meaning of the the words 'father ' son' holy ghost' must mean that muslims are of a lower intelligence than the rest of the humans on earth that can.
in any language the word 'father' denotes a man having sexual relations with a woman and producing a 'son'. but apparently muslims do not have the intelligence to comprehend the true meaning put forth in the bible about Jesus being the 'son' of 'god' and this has forced these translators to demote Jesus to a 'proxy' for the muslims much akin to the prophet mohammed. i cant see any other expination of why they would think this necessary for arabs and not for any other group of people.
or... these are the false prophets spoken of in revelations.
It doesn't say that they are of lower intelligence. I would lay money that you can trace that problem starting in the 2nd century.
well of course it wouldnt 'say' that. but how else can you explain their inability to comprehend something written that every other race, ethnicity, or language has no problem with? and take the fact that they have not progressed socially in centuries.. that could be the reason as a race they just have a lower I.Q. less capability to reason.
It isn't a question of comprehension. There is a major split in doctrine that goes back to the second century. There is a major difference in the Christianity that is in the Middle East and that in the West. Christology.
sorry.. i dont see that . what ever the doctrine may be.. if there is an inability to comprehend a concept behind a word.. that is lack of intelligence. despite what you believe.. you can understand concepts behinds words when they are meant to portray something that is not the conventional definition can you not?
Or they understand the concepts quite well. Muslims do not believe in the virgin birth. And lots of other people around the world don't buy it either.
yes i know.. thats why those that do are called christian and those that dont are not.. this is the christian bible.. so you take that part out and deceive people into believing in christianity with out the truth? isnt that what they call a false prophet then?
Your bible was collected by men with an ulterior motive. How have you not been deceived yourself?
whether the bible is true or believable .. still hold that every one else can comprehend the part about the 'father' 'son' and holy ghost with out special considerations.. why not muslims?
Which goes back to what I previously stated. Muslims are influenced by Arianism. It took 8 centuries to hammer out Christology. The splits began in the second century. Western Christianity is very different.
i understand all that.. it still doesnt explain why a particular race of people cannot reason thier way around the same few words that the rest of the races have no problem with.. it has to be lack of intelligence. they cannot reason. its not becasue they believe it happend or not.. the article said..using the word 'father ' would denote sexual relations between god and mary.. of course.. it denotes that in any language. but only special treatment of that notion for muslims?
Elements of it exist in Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses.
and lets not forget christianity the most divided religion on the planet, a people who not only havent had an inspired man in 2000 years, they closed the door to revelation, and prophets, so much so, that if God were to do or say anything in modern day, they would say "if it aint in the bible its not from God". Amen?
They have had a lot of inspiration but many seem to have forgotten the history. It has to be the most divided religion on the planet, though. :D
Here, instead of another divisive report, maybe we can unite with a piece of common sense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1dXjgrRHeI
Lol. That's hysterical. Had not seen that guy before.
Then you'll love these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKNevqT1L9k
http://www.revbilly.com/work/music/songs/we-are-the-99
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yods1fYMq8
I'm thinking Rev. Billy should be advanced to Sainthood.
Yes, love the hair and the mannerisms ;).
OK so maybe it wasn't the most reliable study out there, but it's interesting to think about. You'll notice it didn't say conservatives on the whole are dumber than liberals, it said "Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change. etc. " I think that's worth thinking about. You are right, Deb that we all want some of the same things: freedom, justice and prosperity, but the problem is, the methods become perverted and evil. Why did Ted Kaczynski grow up in the same family with a brother who became a well adjusted person and a social worker? One brother continued on a productive path and the other brother went insane. Still brilliant, but insane. What I meant to say was, I think the Republican party became so divisive and unhealthy and finally did develop something like a split personality. And they deviously prey on people who will believe anything they say.
Yes, and so have the Democrats
We need to unite beyond party affiliation, to realize that our politicians have acted against our best interests, which is the historical tendency.
Reports like this, only serve to wedge good people apart from one another, for the rules seek power in and of itself, while the ruled point the finger at each other.
Ted Kaczynski was supposedly used as a psychedelic drug and taunting target in LSD experiments at Harvard. He might have been psychologically damaged there and grew into a sociopath later. Did his brother go through Harvard at all and experience the same things?
Regarding the GOP, it is the easy party to hijack because emotions and older and less educated folks are easier to be manipulated.
Both parties are easy to hijack, all you have to do is get people that think in terms of interconnectivity (liberal) to stop talking to persons whom gear toward results( conservatives)
See, we are all the same in this. By lazyness we gravitate toward persons of like minds, then we think that the other folks are stupid, crazy, old, young, whatever. We self serve our own predjudices and thus are easier to be manipulated.
For there is, and has always been another group, that are neither conservative nor liberal, yet they will be the first to tell you that they are, and what it means to be one, they work in deceit and tend toward corruption.
See, there are those that do not seek the common good, but rather would seek their own good, even if it was contrary to the common good. We know these folks as libertarians/ neoconservatives/neoliberals and their worldview is neither interconnectedness nor results toward the common good.
Their worldview is best summed as Hubris.
The violent thought that because I can do a thing, it is right that I do it.
These are the folks that liberals and conservatives have battled throughout history.
It's the shepherd boy against goliath.
And while we all want to be the shepherd boy, we must be on guard not to become goliath.
The Christian Evangelicals and the Tea Party both CHOSE to hijack the GOP. They must have thought that the GOP was easier to hijack. Why should people be constrained by the labels "liberals" and "conservatives" at all? I see "conservatives" who are nowhere near being conservative in the issue of conserving the environment of the only abode that all of us have, and I see "liberals" who are trigger-happy to take away other people's liberty through the force of the governments. Labels do not mean much, do they?
Let me offer a hypothesis. Perhaps the GOP is the party of the rich simply because they have older members (older people tend to be wealthier) who know how to manipulate the less educated and gullible people.
That's my point, in a round about way, liberals within the general public have more in common with conservatives within the general public, then they do with their leadership, and the same is true for conservatives.
the GOP and Dem party are hypocrites extrordinair. And the reson that these type of reports even exist, is to perpetuate myths about one another, for when conservatives and liberals in the general public work together, we tend to change the world.
When they do in government, another freedom dies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcMgt3JQDxw
I believe that we should be careful about making big changes without thinking ahead because I have many indications that a fair number of us on our planet Water have it good. I hate to see much of that work and blessings go to waste in inadvertent convulsive paroxysms due to greed or insularity. We have the knowledge. We have the technology. Some of us have the Consciousness and Conscience. If we reinvent our economic systems and become more coherent in our efforts, we can and should make life better for everyone over time because small changes add up over the long term to make huge differences. We need to know our limits but we should not underestimate our capabilities so we should push hard for changes that do not upset the apple cart. Of course, if the apple cart tips over, we should just view that as charity to feed the poor (probably the rich will also join the rank then).
Newton's law says in layman's term, "You push. It moves." If it does not move, find out if friction is your problem. If it is, get some lubricating oil and grease it. If there is too much weight causing the friction, take the weight off. I do not believe that human institutions are any different although the elites and Magi would like us to believe otherwise.
Well, that is the point I was making; even though I'm sure there were issues in the family of origin, he also failed to thrive in an adult environment and developed extremist ideas that contributed to his methods of madness. The Repubs have a better and an evil, IMO, propaganda machine. Just listen to Rush Limbaugh for 15 minutes and tell me that's not about influencing people of low intelligence; or maybe I should just say gullible. I agree with your last sentence, grapes, except some of us older people are not so easily swayed as you might think.
I was generalizing from the observation of why the GOP had taken over the deep south. It was Democratic country before that. GOP was the party of Lincoln that overran the deep south. I am glad that older people are not so easily swayed as I might have thought. Again I was generalizing from the demographics of the party members. Yes, generalizations can be very slippery slopes. Let this be a lesson to one who sees the forest without seeing the trees.
Got links for the harvard info? I found it, I think.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/06/chase.htm
I'm betting it's a branch of the "new" MKultra.
Thanks for posting that- really interesting!
We do not know everything about the mind
http://merovee.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/mk-ultra-church-committee-report/ http://www.wanttoknow.info/mindcontrol
You called it right the first time. "Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change. etc."
It is the population that they are starting out with and that is the key element. Hierarchy and structure.
GirlFriday = LibtardFriday
Careful there, sweet pea.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation#Functional_assays for further information. There have been several previous studies along this line.
Oh crap, I read this link, and since the methodology isn't provided, then I'll have to debunk on self-evident truth
I ripped this from that report:
In a survey of the perceived severity of moral transgressions, conservatives were more affected by the taste of a bitter drink than liberals.[29] "...taste perception significantly affected moral judgments, such that physical disgust (induced via a bitter taste) elicited feelings of moral disgust. Further, this effect was more pronounced in participants with politically conservative views".
This is self-evident schlock inasmuch that everyone knows that conservatives enjoy the bitter taste of coffee, dark chocolate, and other strong tastes.
Just as everyone knows that this is why liberals prefer smoother tasting lattes, instead of coffee.
this above is patently false, so, therefor, if I can find fault in 10 seconds or less, what do you think would happen with even more scrutiny??
And, yes, I'm engaging in hyperbolae. But you guys started this hyperbolic chamber....
Wikipedia covers the available information, without evaluating it themselves. The study you mention comes from a journal "Psychological Science" ( http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/08/0956797611398497 ). Whether that study is valid or not, it certainly can't invalidate this one.
I'm not sure, but I think this has something to do with Christian Evangelicals and the religious right too.
YES. I agree. I just posted about the oppressive control of the moral majority in this country ( and around the world). Religion has been used for centuries to dumb down folks and keep them controlled by fear. There are good documentaries out there about Religion in America.
To quote the study ( http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract ):
"A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact."
Oh yeah! NOW your talking!
[Removed]
Sad AND true.
You don't use it, you lose it!!
The authoritarian mindset discourages reasoning (thinking) and encourages believing (not thinking). This is why these followers vote against their own (loved ones and neighbors, too) best interests.
Perhaps it's natures way of saving the world from these raging zombies. Slow brain death. Unfortunately, we all suffer their stupidity.
PUH ~ THET ~ ICK!!
Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!
That study was done in the UK, first off...so it has nothing to do with conservatives in America. Second, "socially conservative" is not the same thing as fiscally conservative. I'm fiscally conservative and definitely have a high IQ (based on all my test scores). Granted, I'm also socially liberal. But putting people into these narrow-minded boxes is a huge part of the problem in this country.
PS I would suggest that people who discriminate or judge people based on their political leanings are "prejudiced" and therefore, if you are using the study to judge others, you are probably pointing the "low IQ" finger right back at yourself!
Sigh. Actually, 2 from the UK and one from the US in 2010.
PS thanks for taking the time out of your life to address the issues that the study actually presents.
Trust me, I have had many liberal friends who were extremely smart in many areas but totally stupid when it came to basic things like money and economics. There are all sorts of different types of smarts. And BTW, I did totally address the "issue" brought up by your bringing up of the article - that of "prejudice," which you are displaying against conservatives in spades.
stupid people don't deserve money
actually they do
a fool and his money are soon parted
No, you totally did not address the issue. The article is not of prejudice against conservatives. You fail again.
Maybe you aren't smart enough to understand the "irony" of my comment? Let me spell it out to you - you are trying to use the article you linked to as proof that conservatives are prejudiced people with low IQs. I'm responding by saying that you, yourself, are coming off as prejudiced, so maybe you also have a low IQ. Get it?
Quit whining and address the issues that it presents. I'm assuming that your cognitive ability is fine and that this wouldn't apply to you. But, I am noting your number of posts to this forum. Get it?
From the link to which the 'article' is posted on alternet.org (Ha!)
"...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."
with my normal iq i dont think conservatives in article has anything to do with conservatives in politics. it hard to compare artistic people who have paranoia, drug users and those with claustrophobia comparatively to normal people. if you simply check wiki about conservatism you'll understand there is nothing to do with lower iq but it is something like after 40 when your iq slowly getting down and you trying to save money for your family and keep all good that you already have with out radical changes, you'll reject it you hate changes you want to have stable job as well as stable economy - it is normal
That would be fiscally conservative, not socially conservative, yeah?
well yes. after 40 you not gonna gathering on the square but you'll be on the kitchen or at the bar
The study is addressing the lower IQ attraction to the rigid social conservatism. Hierarchy and structure that shows in racism etc.
honey, you mix it up. "Hierarchy and structure that shows in racism etc" where the racism research in this article???
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.
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. 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.
now i get it =) thx. from very beginning of the page i saw blank field and didn't pay attention to this. Another words: in my browser i cant see this article when i open up your post. hyperlink just gave me little piece of it. Now i understand more about global revolution. Physically overwhelming results can be achieved only with high poverty level and low education level. like in middle east or like in Russia October Revolution in 1917 where manipulation of low-intellectual society has been much easier
uohhh, gross! "And a 2008 study by scientists at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) found that people who are highly responsive to threatening images [man with a mouth full of writhing worms] were likely to support defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq War"
[Removed]
[Removed]
I am not surprised at all. But it would be fun to also know the modal IQ of OWS protesters
case in point
got a hang of the report yet?
The one posted here? or the one from yesterday?
This one is pure junk, the one from yesterday, I already had the hang of if you are referring to the 16 trillion in bailouts.
I had already acceded that the 16 didn't take into account the 2 trillion that went to 'other' governmental subsidiaries.
As far as the daily borrow and reborrow, this I already knew, and is a matter of semantics.
If my brother borrows $10, then reborrows it on a daily basis, this doesn't take away from it being cumulative.
But even if you take the cumulative borrowing out, that was still only 8 trillion, and with an original amount of nearly 2 trillion, which added back in and the GAO number is still at 10 trillion, a far cry from 700+ billion that most everyone else quotes.
And I didn't even add in the bailouts in the form of QE1 QE2 QE3 and the ongoing QE4
TARP cumulative is around $400 bn. $700 bn was pledged but all of it loaned out. If I lend you $10 today and you pay it back by the end of the day, and then I lend you $10 again, the monetary base hasnt expanded. FYI, the banks and fed loan each other all the time, you want to include that too? So please read things before getting carried away.
Oh, I wasn't getting carried away, just highlighting the true amount of the bailout.But if we are going to go into the expansion of the monetary base, then that would be an entirely different number.
The bailout was to the tune of 14 trillion dollars, wether that is relending on the same money or not. But the absolute number on the expansion of credit to socialize the capitalist system, then that number is still in the future tense, as quantitative easing hasn't ended yet, but the tab is 7 trillion and running
$7 trillion my ass. Look kid, I don't have time to teach you accounting or common sense.
QE3 (or is it QE4?) is coming soon. Just wait and see. We cannot allow moneyed folks to go scot free, can we? Yes, most people are moneyed whether they know it or not.
Oh my gosh, QE1, QE2, Operation Twist (or was it QE3?) are getting so numerous that I am losing track of them, very bad sign! I must have drunk too much at the Sea of Gallo last night.
The QE's is beyond basic accounting.
Long story short QE= printing money to buy bonds to make the market
This has done by the Fed to the tune of $7 trillion, and most don't even realize that we have been shoring up the Euro through the printing of dollars for the past 4-6 months even.
And common sense says that once this excessive printing worms it's way through the system, then real inflation will rear it's ugly head. Maybe you need some basic accounting to realize that we've been socializing banking, when banking has lacked real common sense.
And that the populace knows this, and we've been reading thomas paine's common sense as well.
More importantly, if it was $7 trillion it would be on the Fed's balance sheet
yes, I know what QE is and what expansion of money supply does to the economy.
QE wasnt $7 trillion. More importantly QE2's montly outlay of $100 bn was equal and opposite to the value needed to service US sovereign debt. So in a way, it was kind of financing the US debt.
Call to Action!
Help Us Undo NDAA By Petitioning Your State Supreme Court For A Protective Writ of Habeus Corpus Like This One:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/petition-to-supreme-court-of-alaska-to-block-ndaa-/
You do NOT have to be a lawyer to file this petition, but the aid of attorneys is welcome!
That's interesting, i hear that GirlFriday's IQ is 160! So if all of the people in the country who aren't conservatives are smarter than conservatives (as implied by GirlFriday's headline) why are the non-conservatives poorer and less well educated than conservatives? Look at the people who vote democrat they are the poor, the the less educated. I guess being smart makes you poor!
I think you might look at it as people of intelligence are not necessarily consumed by greed.
A weak article. Most people with money move to conservative suburbs. Why are big government cities so poor and ugly?
Study links 99.9% libtards borderline retardation. Anyone surprised???
I'm not surprised in the least.
By any chance do you have a brother named Ted Kaczynski?
for all you know maybe I am Ted Kaczynski . . . metaphorically speaking of course.
I've been to one funereal this week, my nephew has two more ahead of him - and tho there is no evidence to indicate that any of this death has anything in the least to do with the process of radicalization of wingnuts and other malcontents . . .
are you sure you want to piss me off?
Ooh, run from the internet everyone, don't piss off Ted Zendog.
Well said!
[Removed]