They might have better sex, but aren't so smart.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.
Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.
The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.
'Cognitive abilities are critical in forming impressions of other people and in being open minded,' say the researchers.
'Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo.
'It provides a sense of order.'
The study, by academics at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, used information from two UK studies from 1958 and 1970 , where several thousand children were assessed for intelligence at age 10 and 11, and then asked political questions aged 33.
The 1958 National Child Development involved 4,267 men and 4,537 women born in 1958.
The British Cohort Study involved 3,412 men and 3,658 women born in 1970.
It's the first time the data from these studies has been used in this way.
In adulthood, the children were asked whether they agreed with statements such as, 'I wouldn't mind working with people from other races,' and 'I wouldn't mind if a family of a different race moved next door.'
They were also asked whether they agreed with statements about typically right-wing and socially conservative politics such as, 'Give law breakers stiffer sentences,' and 'Schools should teach children to obey authority.'
The researchers also compared their results against a 1986 American study which included tests of cognitive ability and questions assessing prejudice against homosexuals.
The authors claim that there is a strong correlation between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.
The authors also claim that conservative politics is part of a complex relationship that leads people to become prejudices.
'Conservative ideology represents a critical pathway through which childhood intelligence predicts racism in adulthood,' says the paper.
'In psychological terms, the relation between intelligence and prejudice may stem from the propensity of individuals with lower cognitive ability to endorse more right wing conservative ideologies because such ideologies offer a psychological sense of stability and order.'
'Clearly, however, all socially conservative people are not prejudiced, and all prejudiced persons are not conservative.'
See, I don't buy that. The most intelligent person I know is a right-winger, and the same holds true for all of you.
Quote from: Neil on February 04, 2012, 11:13:29 AM
See, I don't buy that. The most intelligent person I know is a right-winger, and the same holds true for all of you.
I'm not a right-winger.
Quote from: Neil on February 04, 2012, 11:13:29 AM
See, I don't buy that. The most intelligent person I know is a right-winger, and the same holds true for all of you.
True, my grandfather was a right-winger, and a Christian to boot.
"The authors also claim that conservative politics is part of a complex relationship that leads people to become prejudices."
:hmm:
I guess the author of the article must be a conservative.
I'm not convinced that racism and homophobia are exclusively right-wing views.
Pretty dishonest to use right winger and bigot interchangeably.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 01:24:46 PM
Pretty dishonest to use right winger and bigot interchangeably.
I agree. Where is this happening?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 01:24:46 PM
Pretty dishonest to use right winger and bigot interchangeably.
Not really; they are mutually inclusive.
Quote from: Maximus on February 04, 2012, 02:13:00 PM
I agree. Where is this happening?
Josephus' keyboard? :hmm:
Seedy: I don't think what you posted is even English.
Did Josephus write that article or are you referring to something else?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 02:26:04 PM
Seedy: I don't think what you posted is even English.
I don't even care anymore. You know that.
I thought it was a clever use of language, and even if I doubt the sets overlap sufficiently to be truly inclusive of one another, the meaning was conveyed, and that's what's important.
Quote from: Maximus on February 04, 2012, 02:39:56 PM
Did Josephus write that article or are you referring to something else?
I'm having a hell of a time figuring out what your point is.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 04, 2012, 02:51:13 PM
I thought it was a clever use of language, and even if I doubt the sets overlap sufficiently to be truly inclusive of one another, the meaning was conveyed, and that's what's important.
Yeah a great way of looking petulant and childish.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 02:52:02 PM
Quote from: Maximus on February 04, 2012, 02:39:56 PM
Did Josephus write that article or are you referring to something else?
I'm having a hell of a time figuring out what your point is.
Nowhere in that article were right-winger and bigot used interchangeably.
It's possible that you were not referring to the article, in which case I misunderstood.
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2012, 03:06:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 04, 2012, 02:51:13 PM
I thought it was a clever use of language, and even if I doubt the sets overlap sufficiently to be truly inclusive of one another, the meaning was conveyed, and that's what's important.
Yeah a great way of looking petulant and childish.
You know, as a minority fag you've never really explained why you politically support people who would hate you if they knew you.
Quote from: Maximus on February 04, 2012, 03:28:24 PM
Nowhere in that article were right-winger and bigot used interchangeably.
It's possible that you were not referring to the article, in which case I misunderstood.
There's room for debate. The article seems to be defining right-winger as someone who doesn't like to work with or live close to minorities, is tough on crime, and thinks schools should teach children to obey. To me that sounds closer to a definition of bigot than of right-winger (which granted, bigots--at least white bigots--are usually a subset).
Quote from: Ancient Demon on February 04, 2012, 12:59:39 PM
I'm not convinced that racism and homophobia are exclusively right-wing views.
You must have not made it to the last line. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 02:26:04 PM
Josephus' keyboard? :hmm:
I said right wingers are morons not bigots. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 03:41:49 PM
There's room for debate. The article seems to be defining right-winger as someone who (1)doesn't like to work with or live close to minorities, (2)is tough on crime, and (3)thinks schools should teach children to obey.
It seems to me that it is defining right-winger as (2) and (3) and claiming a co-relation with (1). I'm not convinced this is a good definition or right-wingedness, but I wouldn't call it the definition of bigotry either. TBH (2) and (3) seem like non-issues, especially (3). Maybe they are issues in Britain.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 03:41:49 PM
To me that sounds closer to a definition of bigot than of right-winger (which granted, bigots--at least white bigots--are usually a subset).
No contest
Quote from: Maximus on February 04, 2012, 03:49:07 PM
It seems to me that it is defining right-winger as (2) and (3) and claiming a co-relation with (1).
I thought they were defining right-winger as 1,2, and 3 and claiming a corelation with stupidity.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2012, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2012, 03:06:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 04, 2012, 02:51:13 PM
I thought it was a clever use of language, and even if I doubt the sets overlap sufficiently to be truly inclusive of one another, the meaning was conveyed, and that's what's important.
Yeah a great way of looking petulant and childish.
You know, as a minority fag you've never really explained why you politically support people who would hate you if they knew you.
Actually I have but then you've never bothered to listen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2012, 03:56:16 PM
Quote from: Maximus on February 04, 2012, 03:49:07 PM
It seems to me that it is defining right-winger as (2) and (3) and claiming a co-relation with (1).
I thought they were defining right-winger as 1,2, and 3 and claiming a corelation with stupidity.
I guess it could be interpreted either way in this article. I read about this study a week or so ago in a different article and got a different impression. I'll see if I can find it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2012, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2012, 03:06:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 04, 2012, 02:51:13 PM
I thought it was a clever use of language, and even if I doubt the sets overlap sufficiently to be truly inclusive of one another, the meaning was conveyed, and that's what's important.
Yeah a great way of looking petulant and childish.
You know, as a minority fag you've never really explained why you politically support people who would hate you if they knew you.
Same goes for you, cop.
Quote from: Neil on February 04, 2012, 11:13:29 AM
See, I don't buy that. The most intelligent person I know is a right-winger, and the same holds true for all of you.
Of course you don't buy that. If you were smarter, you'd realize it. That's part of the problem.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2012, 03:36:50 PM
You know, as a minority fag you've never really explained why you politically support people who would hate you if they knew you.
He's the Roy Cohn of the 21st century.
Quote from: Neil on February 04, 2012, 04:18:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2012, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 04, 2012, 03:06:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 04, 2012, 02:51:13 PM
I thought it was a clever use of language, and even if I doubt the sets overlap sufficiently to be truly inclusive of one another, the meaning was conveyed, and that's what's important.
Yeah a great way of looking petulant and childish.
You know, as a minority fag you've never really explained why you politically support people who would hate you if they knew you.
Same goes for you, cop.
I never tell black people about my past. That way, I am embraced by them and travel amongst them all sneaky-like.