Study links low intelligence with right-wing beliefs

deafbirk said:
Its good to see DC supporting obama and his party. It is a shame she was exiled to canada with her familyas punishment for her crime spree in her youth
Click to expand...

:hmm:

:confused:
 
DeafCaroline said:
...I didn't quote from any leftwing websites. I merely quoted an article that was based on studies and findings from Psychology Today and LiveScience. *You quoted Colony Rabble from "Red County"...

...nice twist - religious right wing republicans are attempting to force the people to comply with their beliefs through politicial means which goes against the Consititution which calls for separation of Church and State...

..."In contemporary culture, those who claim to tolerate everything are intolerant of ideas that come from perspectives other than their own, especially when those ideas are rooted in conservative politics or evangelical faith.
"...
Click to expand...

I attended a Christian elementary and high school with some leftists views and I attended a very liberal college. *Some of the things I learned there speak about exercising caution when using evidence and data and about the assumptions you can safely make. *While I don't doubt the study's finding that those of lower intelligence tend to be more prejudice, I disagree that there has been any finding that there is one political group with higher rate of people with lower intelligence or that prejudice is more prevalent in one or the other group. *I think Grayma found a good article, yes from a typically right-wing biased group, that made a good argument about being careful about finding "a" means "b" and assuming that means you can jump to "z" without proving everything in-between. *A good argument can come from anywhere, it doesn't matter if it came from a typically biased group, although that usually results in people giving it more or less weight than it deserves due to the typical bias they have shown.

Your response may be true that you did not quote from a left-wing website, but from a psychology and science article. *That implies, though, that that journal abstains from posting articles supporting a specific political bias and not posting ones supporting the opposite (maybe true but hold on) or that the writer of the article does not having any biases. *We're all human with biases and beliefs (including in the political arena) and are all susceptible to including those in whatever we do, think, and say even when we intend the opposite.

I am a religious conservative, but I do not try to force my beliefs on anyone. The only way my religious beliefs affect my views is that I will use the constitution to enforce seperation of church and state in order to protect my religious rights not impose on anyone else's.

And your ending quote I believe would be more accurate as "In any culture, those who claim to tolerate everything are frequently intolerant of ideas that come from perspectives other than their own." *I do not believe any group, culture, or religion (or lack of) is exempt from this or that there is any group, culture, or religion (or lack of) where this applies more.
 
Don't bother. They don't care about what you said... they still think you're just another stupid and prejudged person because this thread said so. =/
 
KarissaMann05 said:
Don't bother. They don't care about what you said... they still think you're just another stupid and prejudged person because this thread said so. =/
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I don't mind. :cool2: I always prefer to give someone an opportunity to learn and grow; if they take it to mind or heart, that is always their choice. It is better to "waste" breath trying to educate then "waste" breath complaining about ignorance; only one way can result in positive change. :wave: About your comment that they will automatically assume I am stupid and/or prejudice without "listening" to my argument (as in debate, not as in being contrary), doesn't that mean they are prejudice, since they pre- (before knowing) judged (form an opinion or assumption) me. :giggle:
 
The obvious problem with this so-called study is the axiomatic association of bigotry with conservatives without proving that assertion. It's based on an stereotype that wasn't proven. The fact that a bigoted liberal did the study and had it published in a journal edited and published by those who share his political prejudices in no way lends it credibility.

In fact, the nasty political practice of eugenics is firmly based in progressive politics- if you've never heard of the case of Buck vs Bell, you should read up on it. Carrie Buck was in foster care with an aunt. Her cousin raped her and got her pregnant, so her foster family had her institutionalized as incorrigible. Her case was used by progressives as a test case for a law allowing the forcible sterilization of 'undesireables.' Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority opinion allowing her force sterilization, stating that 'three generations of imbeciles is enough.'
But there weren't three generations of imbeciles. Carrie's mother was something of a ne'er do well, but there's no reason to supposed she was an 'imbecile.' Carrie herself was quite normal, and her illegitimate daughter made the honor roll in school before she died of complications from measles.

That Progressive law, and the eugenics societies popular with Progressives here in the states, were used by Hitler later in creating his programs to eliminate 'undesirables.' The tight connections between Progressives and eugenics indicates that bigotry does not confine itself to only one political point of view- as does the unquestioning, uncritical acceptance of this obviously flawed work.

It's really pretty laughable that people accepted this study without question and think it proves that they are the smart ones.


http://www.rightklik.net/2012/02/bright-minds-dark-attitudes-progressive.html:

Naturally, faced with such a delicious affirmation of one of their most cherished stereotypes, progressives have been credulous. To protect and buttress their hateful attitudes, progressives have ignored the problems in Hodson's study while overgeneralizing its dubious results.


In so doing, the left has somehow missed the irony.


But Hodson's research is riddled with flaws. Dr. William M. Briggs, Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science at Cornell University, takes note:
[The study] is a textbook example of confused data, unrecognized bias, and ignorance of statistics...


What makes the study ludicrous, even ignoring the biases, manipulations, and qualifications just outlined, by the authors’ own admission the direct effect size for [intelligence] on “racism” is only -0.01 for men and 0.02 for women. Utterly trivial; close enough to no effect to be no effect...
​
Dr. Briggspoints to a host of other problems.


In fact, several important points have been conspicuously ignored during left-wing jubilation over Hodson’s research:


1. Some ideas that are strongly associated with the progressive point of view are firmly rooted in ignorance. For example:
If you changed the question to attitudes toward global free trade there would be a correlation between lower I.Q. and the ‘more liberal’ (at last in American politics) position.​
Why do I feel it’s safe to bet that Hodson and his fans will not hasten to investigate these links?
As Jonathan Haidt has articulated most recently, most academic political scientists and psychologists have strongly social liberal views, and so they consciously or unconsciously tend to caricature and misrepresent the views of half their study population…​
2. "As LiveScience's Stephanie Pappas mentions, the questionnaire didn't test for secretly racist thoughts, and thus the more intelligent subjects may still have been prejudiced, but just better at lying about it." (social desirability bias, à la the Bradley effect).


Hodson et al. are utterly disappointing in their lazy attempt to address this concern.



3. The study looked at IQ at ages 10-11, and social attitudes 20 years later. "[T]rying to measure a person's 'cognitive ability' at such a tender age is fraught with difficulty. According toa recent paper in Nature, IQ fluctuates dramatically during adolescence, with some people's scores improving and others' deteriorating, and only becomes relatively static once the brain has stopped growing." A direct link between childhood IQ and adult attitudes would be expected to be tenuous, at best.


4. Conservative prejudice (real or imagined) does not justify prejudice against conservatives. This is especially true if we are to believe that conservative prejudice is truly due to intrinsic cognitive deficiencies.


One of the most pernicious ideas to emerge from this discussion is the notion that conservative ideology is a poison that turns feeble-minded folk into monsters.


If we get the the point where we’ve legitimized the idea that stupid people should be sheilded from our opponents’ political ideas, we’ll be well on our way to a panoply of problems that are at least as dangerous as Hodson’s “dark attitudes.”
Click to expand...
 
DeafRaptor said:
Don't worry, I don't mind. :cool2: I always prefer to give someone an opportunity to learn and grow; if they take it to mind or heart, that is always their choice. It is better to "waste" breath trying to educate then "waste" breath complaining about ignorance; only one way can result in positive change. :wave: About your comment that they will automatically assume I am stupid and/or prejudice without "listening" to my argument (as in debate, not as in being contrary), doesn't that mean they are prejudice, since they pre- (before knowing) judged (form an opinion or assumption) me. :giggle:
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. It clearly shows their own bigotry and prejudices without proving anything about anybody else.
 
Most GOP politicians are bigoted and less integellence when come with issue over gay marriage and abortion. They come to against on our belief and I think that abortion should be up to women without government interfere. The gay marriage is personal matters and opinion should be not heard from majority of people since gay marriage is very minority.

This situation has caused for me to not support GOP anymore.
 
Foxrac said:
Most GOP politicians are bigoted and less integellence when come with issue over gay marriage and abortion. They come to against on our belief and I think that abortion should be up to women without government interfere. The gay marriage is personal matters and opinion should be not heard from majority of people since gay marriage is very minority.

This situation has caused for me to not support GOP anymore.
Click to expand...

Being prolife is not bigoted. Abortion hurts women, too, and it hurts baby girls who are killed in the womb in far greater numbers than baby boys because of sex selection abortions. Furthermore the founder of Planned Parenthood was herself a racist eugenicist who wanted abortion and birth control used more frequently in black communities because she felt they were inferior races and should not have many children.


Disagreeing with you on these issues does not make somebody less intelligent than you. That is itself a prejudiced statement.
 
Grayma said:
Being prolife is not bigoted. Abortion hurts women, too, and it hurts baby girls who are killed in the womb in far greater numbers than baby boys because of sex selection abortions. Furthermore the founder of Planned Parenthood was herself a racist eugenicist who wanted abortion and birth control used more frequently in black communities because she felt they were inferior races and should not have many children.


Disagreeing with you on these issues does not make somebody less intelligent than you. That is itself a prejudiced statement.
Click to expand...

Oh well, I disagree with you.
 
I think this thread's ready for the junk pile!
 
Lambert77655 said:
avatar5.jpg
I thought it was because they were more emotional, and leftists were more logical. My bad.
Click to expand...

Just wait and see what SayWhatKid says to you....becuz you copied his earlier response to this thread!
 
saywhatkid said:
I thought it was one of the best posts in this thread. Oh wait...:giggle:
Click to expand...

:giggle: Okay, stop that, too silly. :giggle:

About your post, I thought it was a little odd, but only because it's the opposite of what I have heard from people. I have met, befriended, and had good political discussions with a lot people from both democratic and republican political parties (as well as "third" parties). What I have always heard from democrats I met about themselves and republicans I met about democrats is that democrats are more on the "feeling" side of the personality spectrum (Psychological ("personality") Types) versus "thinking". What I have always heard from republicans I met about themselves and from democrats I met about republicans is that republicans are more on "thinking" side of the personality spectrum versus "feeling". But still, it could just be a regional thing or something; I could be wrong.
 
Grayma said:
Being prolife is not bigoted. Abortion hurts women, too, and it hurts baby girls who are killed in the womb in far greater numbers than baby boys because of sex selection abortions. Furthermore the founder of Planned Parenthood was herself a racist eugenicist who wanted abortion and birth control used more frequently in black communities because she felt they were inferior races and should not have many children.


Disagreeing with you on these issues does not make somebody less intelligent than you. That is itself a prejudiced statement.
Click to expand...

I like to make additional comment.

Gay marriage is personal matters and should be not heard by opinion about what government should do for us. Gay marriage is very minority and should be treat same respect as opposite sex marriage. That's not prejudiced statement.

For abortion, like I said, I disagree with you and doesn't believe about situation with Planned Parenthood.
 
Back
Top