Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably says new study)

joeboosauce

joeboosauce

CAGiversary!
Here is yet another study that shows links between conservatism and lower intelligence, etc. What perplexes me is why it has taken so long to conduct such research. It is an elephant in the room. I guess people didn't want to hurt the imbecile's feelings. I'll blame that on liberal bleeding hearts...:lol:


Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/social-conservatives-have-a-lower-i-q-probably/

The above article explores this recent study:
Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact

Abstract:
Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. 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. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anecdotal of course, bu the dumbest people I know are for the most part socially conservative. Although I'd say that's obvious since in my mind social conservatism is a stupid thing to begin with, those who are, are less intelligent off the bat.
 
Quick, someone post a link to a similar survey that measures the IQ of various minorities vs. white folk.

Then we can move on to the part where we agree that IQ Tests generally aren't a good measure of actual intelligence.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Quick, someone post a link to a similar survey that measures the IQ of various minorities vs. white folk.

Then we can move on to the part where we agree that IQ Tests generally aren't a good measure of actual intelligence.[/QUOTE]

I just love when the topic of the thread is proved by the responses.

They are really the gems. The perfect threads.

Well played Jooboo :applause:
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... camoor. IQ tests. Reasonably accurate and fair measurement of intelligence across the board or no?[/QUOTE]

You have a better way?
 
So... you're not going to answer the question?

Either IQ tests are reasonably accurate and fair, and studies like this and similar studies regarding minorities are also accurate or there are some serious flaws in the basic designs and applications of IQ tests and the results of them are not 100% applicable.

Or, as usual for vs., you can take the information that is in line with your already-formed opinion and agree with it while denying the information that shows your already-formed opinion has issues at best.
 
I am really starting to love the vs part of cag. Pure ENTERTAINMENT on the most basic of levels. I am seriously considering making this part of the forum my replacement for my "daily joke" feed.

Pure Humor Gold!!
 
[quote name='YendelTrex']I am really starting to love the vs part of cag. Pure ENTERTAINMENT on the most basic of levels. I am seriously considering making this part of the forum my replacement for my "daily joke" feed.

Pure Humor Gold!![/QUOTE]

Not sure if you are a sophist, or one who listens to them.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
Or, as usual for vs., you can take the information that is in line with your already-formed opinion and agree with it while denying the information that shows your already-formed opinion has issues at best.[/QUOTE]

This is basically what I was going to say but I will add that all the while they disregard any evidence that disputes their opinion as "not reliable, bias, or just plain old yucky".

Like you said it is usual for vs.
 
[quote name='camoor']You have a better way?[/QUOTE]
He doesn't get that we're talking about political ideology and not race.
 
Funny - I thought we were talking about IQ test results and how they reflect upon groups of people.

But let me get this straight - Conservatives have lower IQ test results, it's okay. Obvious, even. Blacks have lower IQ test results - well, obviously the tests are broken.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... you're not going to answer the question?

Either IQ tests are reasonably accurate and fair, and studies like this and similar studies regarding minorities are also accurate or there are some serious flaws in the basic designs and applications of IQ tests and the results of them are not 100% applicable.

Or, as usual for vs., you can take the information that is in line with your already-formed opinion and agree with it while denying the information that shows your already-formed opinion has issues at best.[/QUOTE]

What objectively measures IQ better then IQ tests?

If you've got counter-evidence that conservatives are as smart as liberals then let's hear it. Otherwise the science speaks for itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']Funny - I thought we were talking about IQ test results and how they reflect upon groups of people.

But let me get this straight - Conservatives have lower IQ test results, it's okay. Obvious, even. Blacks have lower IQ test results - well, obviously the tests are broken.[/QUOTE]

DOUBLE DOWN with RACISM

Now that's the Bob we've all come to know...
 
Don't have time/interest to read the study, but I'd guess it's a spurious relationship and explained by poverty, neuro-cognitive deficits from mother smoking/drinking/drug use during pregnancy, lack of attachment/interest in school/education etc. that are more prevalent among people born into poverty (and poor rural folk tend to be social conservatives). All that stuff can have impact on either innate intelligence or development of IQ as one ages/matures.

I'd suspect you'd find similar things among poor, urban liberals. And that type of stuff is a lot of what explains why blacks score lower (as they're more likely to be born into poverty and all the stuff I listed), as well as cultural biases in the language/scenarios of the tests (which could also effect poor, rural whites perhaps if it's partly class bias).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RedvsBlue']DOUBLE DOWN with RACISM

Now that's the Bob we've all come to know...[/QUOTE]

Racism? To point out that using IQ tests and their results in this fashion is flawed? Really?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Racism? To point out that using IQ tests and their results in this fashion is flawed? Really?[/QUOTE]


I think the variation here is that the African-American "study" implied a genetic relation, whereas here there isn't really such a tenuous facet. It's almost the difference between saying brown-eyed children score poorly and poor children score poorly. One is related to upbringing and economy, the other would suggest a genetically inferior form of humanity.

I'm not saying that I.Q. is a measure of total intelligence, nor is it fair to everyone in what it does measure.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Don't have time/interest to read the study, but I'd guess it's a spurious relationship and explained by poverty, neuro-cognitive deficits from mother smoking/drinking/drug use during pregnancy, lack of attachment/interest in school/education etc. that are more prevalent among people born into poverty (and poor rural folk tend to be social conservatives). All that stuff can have impact on either innate intelligence or development of IQ as one ages/matures.

I'd suspect you'd find similar things among poor, urban liberals. And that type of stuff is a lot of what explains why blacks score lower (as they're more likely to be born into poverty and all the stuff I listed), as well as cultural biases in the language/scenarios of the tests (which could also effect poor, rural whites perhaps if it's partly class bias).[/QUOTE]
This is pretty much what I got out of it. It's less about being black/white, but more about being poor as poor black and poor white folk will mostlikely have closer results than to rich white folks. Hell, black people and Latinos even tend to be socially conservative too.
 
[quote name='ID2006']I think the variation here is that the African-American "study" implied a genetic relation, whereas here there isn't really such a tenuous facet. It's almost the difference between saying brown-eyed children score poorly and poor children score poorly. One is related to upbringing and economy, the other would suggest a genetically inferior form of humanity.

I'm not saying that I.Q. is a measure of total intelligence, nor is it fair to everyone in what it does measure.[/QUOTE]

Depends on the study and, in particular, how the results are presented. It's the difference between presenting the results by explaining the vast differences that tend to make up the backgrounds of those in those groups vs. "lol stupid people."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top