Pornrevolution.net • View topic - LOW IQ & CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS LINKED TO PREJUDICE

LOW IQ & CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS LINKED TO PREJUDICE Pornrevolution.net • View topic - LOW IQ & CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS LINKED TO PREJUDICE

LOW IQ & CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS LINKED TO PREJUDICE

3 posts • Page 1 of 1

LOW IQ & CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS LINKED TO PREJUDICE

by admin_pornrev » Sun Dec 28, 2014 1:57 pm

LOW IQ & CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS LINKED TO PREJUDICE
by Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
26th January 2012

FROM: http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

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.
• Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors
• Inside the Brain: A Photo Journey Through Time
• Busted! 6 Gender Myths in the Bedroom & Beyond

inShare111
MORE FROM LiveScience.com
•
Image Albums
•
Countdowns
•
Topics
•
Infographics
• Elizabeth S. Chong • National University of Malaysia
Prejudice = low IQ ?
Reply •
• June 15 at 9:35am
•
christenmord (signed in using yahoo)
I'm an Atheist, and a racist. I'm also opposed to Conservatism. Confuse libtards and Conservatards 4 lyf.
Reply •
• June 3 at 2:12am
•
Phang Kuan Hoong • Top Commenter • Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
This study should be conducted in Malaysia, I'll bet you can get some absolutely conclusive findings here.
Reply •
• May 20 at 1:32am
•
Lim Ming Jie • Top Commenter • Nanyang Technological University
I find it amusing that the main part of the study was conducted on UK populations, yet it appears that the ones taking umbrage are the American (and thus far, two Chilean) conservatives.

Incidentally, for those of you looking for a link to the article, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.short It's unfortunately behind a paywall, but looks legit.
Reply •
• May 17 at 9:41pm
•
Fae Lopez • Top Commenter
Lol I didn't need a study to know this! but I'm glad there's one now

Reply • 1 •
• May 17 at 2:56pm
•
Harry Herman • University of Toronto
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118
Reply •
• May 16 at 3:26pm
•
Harry Herman • University of Toronto
Gordon Hodson and Michael A Busseri's study has been described as "a contender for the worst use of statistics in an original paper ever" by Dr William M Briggs, Professor of Statistical science at Cornell (hat tip: Libertarian View). You can read Professor Briggs's analysis here.
Reply • 1 •
• May 16 at 3:25pm
•
Ellen Smithee • Top Commenter • Works at I'm not telling you
This explains why my idiot homophobic, racist, Jesus--freak brother is a Republican.
Reply • 5 •
• May 12 at 12:47pm
•
Mike Cessac • Top Commenter
If this is an actual study, where are the actual numbers and details of those studied? Is there a link to the actual study instead of a general recount? How does something like this add to the actual database of factual tested and peer reviewed by others to try and prove such a study?

Much of what is posted here is wrought with logical and analogous fallacies right on the surface as I read through it. How does the author of the study define "social conservatism"? Same with racism. This article really should be in the political opinion side of livescience, instead of the scientific.
Reply • 2 •
• May 10 at 5:48pm
o
Ed McEneaney • Villanova University
That is correct, Mike. This is the most unscientific and unsupported nonsense I have read in a long long time. This is the "intellectuals" way of seeding their own ignorance, prejudice, and anarchy. I am getting a rich and valuable lesson from people like Eric Whatever (who spews his nonsense all over this website) and Stephanie Pappas (the garbage monger who wrote this article). They give all people of color a chance to view the roots of hatred through "research speak" invented by them, correlated by them, defined by them, and justified by the ignorant people who take their words as "proof" or sustainable validity. These are the seeds of anarchy and violence.
Reply • 1 •
• May 11 at 8:27am
o
Armando Garcia • Oakland, California
"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."

Settle down folks! I think this is a pretty good read. Just wanted to point out the above paragraph and the section it belongs to, in case you missed that. it's a pretty reasonable, though quantitatively elusive, correlation. I do know this... in general, conservative propaganda is aimed at attracting people with an oversimplified world-view, that is easier to handle for people with low awareness and reasoning difficulty. It doesn't mean there are no valid opinions or points that fall under the "conservative" umbrella. At least in the U.S., politics is a circus and the Republican Party has long ago sold out on the development of "conservatism" in modern context, in favor of growing the party with this simplistic and delusional world view.

This is a problem for everyone of every opinion, because we aren't having real debates about anything. Democrats and liberals are guilty of their own simplifications, but it works a little differently.
Reply • 5 •
• May 17 at 12:40pm
•
Rick Siegfried • Top Commenter • Eureka, California
My experience tells me that this study is right on! I know a lot of conservatives who are good at their jobs which makes a lot of people think they are intelligent, but these right-wingers are ignorant and stupid when it comes to anything other than their job description.
Reply • 3 •
• May 7 at 10:39am
o
Ed McEneaney • Villanova University
I can see why you are listed as a top commentator on MHP's website. Wow.
Reply •
• May 11 at 9:38am
•
Heather Slieter • Black Hawk College
I don't know why some of you have trouble with this idea. Prejudice is believing something in spite of, or without having, the facts. Seems very likely that people with low I.Q.s have that problem. And conservatism is the unwillingness to change with the times, or adapt to new ideas. By definition alone, this article is true.
Reply • 11 •
• May 1 at 2:25pm
o
Sergio Caro del Castillo • Works at Hоgwarts
The entire Bible is fact, backed by improbably consistent prophecies and further backed by historical evidence. Fools hate the facts...You say "prejudice is believing something in spite of, or without having, the facts". If you are not the very same person you are accusing conservatives of, then you obviously are NOT prejudiced against the Bile and should research the "facts"...unless you are what you accuse us of?
Reply •
• May 10 at 9:17am
o
Heather Slieter • Black Hawk College
When they found troy, it meant that Homer used a real city in his stories. It didn't mean that sirens and sea monsters exist. Being prejudiced is behaving through your subconscious pre-programming rather than using critical thinking. Being scared of things that are unknown, or grossed out by something you find distasteful are examples of this. I expect this response from religious people, because religion reinforces fear and punishes critical thinking. I'm also not surprised that an article about low I.Q.s, conservative beliefs, and prejudice should have found it's way to your interest.
Reply • 6 •
• May 20 at 8:31am
•
valuqik (signed in using yahoo)
How does one explain the prideful elitism exhibited by liberals?
Reply •
• April 30 at 8:26pm
o
Edmond J. O'Neill • Top Commenter • Hospice Volunteer at Semi-Retired
I'm far left of "liberalism." But, yes we are "elite" in the sense of enlightened attitudes that are open to analysis of problems, facts, science, the scientific method, nnot ideology, the baby food of the Teabagist right wing theme park of the mind, which includes but is not limited to Fox "news," Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and the assorted gaggle of knuckle-dragging caricatures of human beings who have rejected their frontal lobes, instead rerouting their synapses involving the higher faculties to the more ancient areas of the brain where we share "gut check" responses with lizards and the like. So, yeah, I guess we are "proud, elite" and rightfully so. Have you hugged your billionaire zookeeper today ?
Reply • 4 •
• May 1 at 8:42am
o
Sergio Caro del Castillo • Works at Hоgwarts
Edmond J. Skip O'Neill "13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth. 15 Such wisdom does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. 16 For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will also be disorder and wickedness of every kind.

17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace." Your "eliteness" and self-enlightment is false. You are over-educated yet you are using words you just looked up in the dictionary. Here's a "gut check" for you. When was the last time you risked your own life for someone else or volunteered in the military. You should use the intelligence you truly have and convert it into WISDOM with a healthy dose of daily Bible reading.
Reply •
• May 10 at 8:58am
o
Sergio Caro del Castillo • Works at Hоgwarts
I can help explain their prideful elitism!! Psalm 10:4 explains that the proud are so consumed with themselves that their thoughts are far from God: “In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.” Proverbs 8:13 To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech. Proverbs 13:10 Pride only breeds quarrels, but wisdom is found in those who take advice. Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. ... The problem with wrestling with a pig is that I get all muddy and the pig just loves it!
Reply •
• May 10 at 9:10am
View 3 more
•
Nick Ouse • San Luis Obispo High
Lol...it's okay conservatives...the right thing to do is admit that you are wrong and should be more understanding of the complexities of society. Oh that's right you are resistant to change!
Reply • 1 •
• April 30 at 4:31pm
o
Sergio Caro del Castillo • Works at Hоgwarts
If your change means swapping my wife for a man, then yes, I don't want to change. If your change means sacrificing children for a better economy, better body, better education for myself, financial security, because i'm too young or because i don't want stretch marks or simply don't know who the daddy is...then yes, I am resistent to your stupid changes if means spreading diseases and sacrificing children. Was that too "complex" for you?
Reply •
• May 10 at 8:54am
o
Alfonso Javier Encinas Escobar • Top Commenter • University of Edinburgh School of Law
Sergio Caro del Castillo, it appears you are among those that give conservatives a bad name, as you have completely misunderstood what liberals are proposing.

"If your change means swapping my wife for a man, then yes, I don't want to change."

Liberals are not asking straight people, married or unmarried, to become gay. All they are asking is that they stop being prejudiced and discriminating against gays, and allow them to marry with each other. If your church or yourself refuse to believe that same sex marriages are approved by God, you are free to continue believing that, but your beliefs shouldn't affect their ability to marry and benefit from the legal consequences of marriage. Church ministers would not be forced to carry out any same sex marriages.

"If your change means sacrificing children for a better economy, better...See More
Reply • 5 •
• May 10 at 3:39pm
o
Anneliese Marques • Top Commenter • Trent University
Sergio Caro del Castillo And your hatred and anger, especially towards gays, is just beneath the surface.
Reply •
• May 11 at 12:16pm
•
Perry Gould • State University of New York at Cobleskill
This biased bs needs to stop I know far more people that are conservative and intelligent and non prejudice than are...Liberial professing is all that is evident in this article, stop indoctrinating our peers with this bogus science..study the stars or something of substance, the writer is most likely one of the "offended".
Reply •
• April 29 at 1:48pm
o
Gustavo Aveiro • Top Commenter • Barueri, Brazil
The article is not biased at all. Obviously, it would be a fallacy to generalize, but the article doesn't make a generalization because this is a study of averages, the article is quite clear when it states the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid, they reiterate claiming that the research is based upon averages over large groups, in other words, there are exceptions.
Reply • 3 •
• April 29 at 11:00pm
o
Heather Slieter • Black Hawk College
Yea, now u say "study the stars". But when that science first came out, the conservatives burned those brave scientists at the stake, imprisoned them, etc. I dont think it matters what the science is about, stars, evolution, physics, and now social sciences... Conservatives just hate facts. Because every fact illuminates a prior ignorance.
Reply • 3 •
• May 1 at 2:16pm
o
Sergio Caro del Castillo • Works at Hоgwarts
Heather Risden The entire Bible is fact, backed by improbably consistent prophecies and further backed by historical evidence. Fools hate the facts...are you a fool? If not, pick up a King James Bible and start reading
Reply •
• May 10 at 8:51am
View 1 more
•
Stuart Dale Coker
Apparently, LiveScience doesn't know the difference between Racism and Bigotry. If they don't know the proper basis of their thesis, why should we trust the whole premise of their article.
Reply •
• April 28 at 1:32pm
o
Heather Slieter • Black Hawk College
Racism is bigotry. Bigotry can be racist. Its like how a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't always a square. Don't worry, you'll get it. Out of curiosity though, are you here to defend racism or bigotry?
Reply • 2 •
• May 1 at 2:34pm
o
David Grant • Healdsburg High
To correct you both, racism is the belief that one race is superior to another and bigotry is the obstinate devotion to an opinion. Usually they get tied together because bigoty is generally thought about when someone has an obstinate devotion to racism but they are not the same and LifeScience does in fact know the difference. You just thought they didn't because YOU didn't know the difference.
Reply • 2 •
• May 8 at 11:15am
•
Rachel Curtis Merritt • NSCC
Racism occurs within liberals and conservatives; educated and uneducated; all races, cultures, and religions. I guess everyone has a low IQ. Or maybe, just maybe, Live Science is bias.

Reply • 3 •
• April 24 at 10:17am
o
Kelly JJ • Top Commenter • Seattle, Washington
Clearly there are always exceptions, but what the article is pointing out are statistical trends. An average liberal is more likely to be educated and less likely to be racist. Although, I'm sure we don't need a study to tell us that, it's good to quantify these things so we can better understand human behavior overall.
Reply • 6 •
• April 24 at 1:39pm
o
Rafael M. • Rio Grande, Puerto Rico
Your comment completely misses the point if this well articulated article.
Reply • 1 •
• April 24 at 5:24pm
o
Charles Temple White Jr • Top Commenter
Racism is a function of one group's power over an identifiable "other"....not random nasty remarks made to people of a different shade.
Reply • 2 •
• April 24 at 6:31pm
View 2 more
•
Thalisson Marcos • Goiânia
Isso explica muita coisa...
Reply • 2 •
• April 10 at 1:13pm
o
Silvana Stelmachtchuk • Top Commenter

Reply •
• April 10 at 7:52pm
•
Anna Lipniacka • Geneva, Switzerland
intelligence can be made to grow, fortunatelly. Teachers without borders?
Reply •
• March 2 at 9:28am
o
John Novak • Top Commenter • Charles F. Brush High School
Only if its restricted to the "borders" of Vermont, Oregon, and California. Sorry, have no room for old fashioned peasants and their conservative beliefs.

Problem is, I believe in liberalism. And the problem with that is, liberalism helps out poor folks and poor folks are conservative. Ghetto people aren't liberal, that's a racist lie used by tea partiers to distance themself from black people. In reality, ghetto people are conservative as hell. Think about it. They still beat their kids, they still read the bible.

maybe we should be telling people who live in the ghetto to "get with the times" and not just white rednecks? After all, its not JUST rural white folks who hate women and think that people who aren't Christians are worthless. Ghetto people think that way too. Most gang bangers are Christians.

I hate religion. I hat...See More
Reply • 6 •
• March 2 at 9:37am
o
Rebekah Flanagan • Top Commenter • Works at Oklahoma Accountancy Board
I would say your place on the political spectrum is extreme elitist and self righteous. Eugenics huh? Well you can go ahead and pursue that dream by getting on the Planned Parenthood payroll. Eugenics was a belief held by the founder of PP. Sounds like you have a lot of hate going on inside of you. Spew hate about those who you claim spew hate. Seems counterintuative.
Reply • 3 •
• April 12 at 6:43am
o
Tim Giles • Top Commenter • Oakdale High
John you just put your own self in the the fire of violence you have managed to get some education from some where dispite your lack of reasoning ability !
Reply •
• April 24 at 9:58am
View 2 more
•
John Novak • Top Commenter • Charles F. Brush High School
I think extremely intelligent people tend to be conservatives as well.

It goes something like this:

Republican voters < Democratic voters < Marxists < Conservative atheists.
Reply • 1 •
• March 1 at 5:00am
o
David Fowler • McMaster University
conservative atheists? an oxymoron
Reply • 2 •
• April 25 at 7:43am
o
John Novak • Top Commenter • Charles F. Brush High School
You can be an atheist and still be a greedy person who supports conservative economics, and be intelligent at the same time. not rocket science dude
Reply •
• June 8 at 7:58am
o
John Novak • Top Commenter • Charles F. Brush High School
All humans evolved from chimpanzees, including smart humans. chimpanzees are not the friendliest animals. just because you use some dumb rednecks to prop up your own cause doesn't make you a dumb redneck, that's what all of the rulers of the world do and always have done. most Christian rednecks are pretty easy to control. the liberal half of the population is a bit harder to work with due to their intelligence, but they can be influenced as well. too many liberals have this spiritualist philosophy that the good always win in the end. study the behaviors of the 1% and learn the law of the jungle. any book by Darwin is a good start for anyone interested. in order to do good you must understand the dark side of nature first,and since the topic is prejudice, start with herd mentality, in evolutionary survival tactic dating back millions of years. Mostly all of us need approval form from some sort of tribe, Republicans or Democrats included.
Reply •
• June 8 at 8:09am
•
Stephanie Cubsfan • Top Commenter • Official uniform inspector and dresser for Chicago teams at Uniform Inspector for the Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls and NU.
I think we have to get past the idea that pointing out that in some areas races are different is racist. Blacks tend to be superior in some areas and whites others. It's a fact. It's changing now with more intermarrying (which is good) but still there are some areas different races excel more in.
Reply •
• January 27 at 1:56pm
o
Mark Harris • Top Commenter • Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
So you support the genocide of all races in order to create a single blended population that is specialist in nothing but average in everything?
Reply • 3 •
• February 28 at 3:46am
o
Joanna Wallace • Queens College
wow @ Mark's comment. specialist in nothing? it's been shown that our ability to fight disease is improved with the combination of varying gene pools. If anything, cross breeding of racial groups is improving us as a whole. what kind of specializations were you looking at? who can make the fastest runners, who can scare the most people with their hairy sweater at the beach? Who has the most porcelain looking asian skin? Whose got the shiniest, thickest hair? I'm confused by your comment.
Reply •
• April 24 at 6:19am
o
Tim Giles • Top Commenter • Oakdale High
It is genecide if done on purpose ,have you noticed how many mixed couples show up on commercials ,once up on a time blacks and whites were together on ly on kiddie shows and schools I am of the opinion that God knows what he is doing and the destruction of the races is not a good thing wars are fought over a lot more things other than racism!
Reply •
• April 24 at 10:09am
o
Tim Giles • Top Commenter • Oakdale High
It is genecide if done on purpose ,have you noticed how many mixed couples show up on commercials ,once up on a time blacks and whites were together on ly on kiddie shows and schools I am of the opinion that God knows what he is doing and the destruction of the races is not a good thing wars are fought over a lot more things other than racism!
Reply •
• April 24 at 10:09am
o
Charles Temple White Jr • Top Commenter
Andrew Riegle ...people breed themselves?
Reply •
• April 24 at 6:32pm
•
Stephanie Cubsfan • Top Commenter • Official uniform inspector and dresser for Chicago teams at Uniform Inspector for the Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls and NU.
Everyone I know who travels with their job and trains people will say the so called liberal cities are far more racist and racially divided. I know a group of traveling trainers for a major company. They always divide training classes into groups. Liberal north all the whites stay together all the blacks stay together. In the conservative south they mix.
Reply •
• January 27 at 1:55pm
•
Stephanie Cubsfan • Top Commenter • Official uniform inspector and dresser for Chicago teams at Uniform Inspector for the Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls and NU.
Compare the education and iq of the suburban voter in Cook County to the city voter. Suburbs went for Romney. City for Obama.
Reply •
• January 27 at 1:50pm
•
Stephanie Cubsfan • Top Commenter • Official uniform inspector and dresser for Chicago teams at Uniform Inspector for the Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls and NU.
It's the brainless who voted for Obama. Nobody who could think for themselves voted for Obama. They voted how the news media and Hollywood told them to.
Reply • 3 •
• January 27 at 1:49pm
o
Gary Morin • Top Commenter
sorry, no wait - I'm not sorry: your comment is just plain stupid
Reply • 10 •
• April 3 at 1:16pm
o
Hilton Spence • Top Commenter • Works at Re/Max Metro Atlanta
Stephanie - what an idiot
Reply • 7 •
• April 13 at 6:10am
o
Stuart Dale Coker
You are correct, Stephanie. Interview after interview you see people who did not even know Obama's policies or key issues in the debate saying they would vote for Obama. Many were voting only because of his race. Many were voting only because he wasn't a Republican.

At least 2 dozen people I heard interviewed said they believed in everything Romney and McCain had to say...as long as the policy was attributed to Obama. Many even said that they thought it was a good idea that Obama chose Palin for his vice president.

The only reason liberals remain in power is greed and poor government education.
Reply •
• April 28 at 1:49pm
•
Stephanie Cubsfan • Top Commenter • Official uniform inspector and dresser for Chicago teams at Uniform Inspector for the Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls and NU.
What abour all the blacks who hate whites? What about the 2012 election which was about hate of mormons?
Reply • 1 •
• January 27 at 1:47pm
•
John Dubose • Top Commenter • Houston, Texas
Libertarian style conservatives look at this article and see borderline slander. Racial prejudice is more an unfair mental shortcut than anything else. Leftists do the same thing sometimes.

Hitler was by his own words and deeds a socialist and a bigot.
Reply • 3 •
• November 11, 2012 at 4:33am
o
Aman Sandhu
Libertarian style conservatives are usually socially liberal. Hitler was not a Socialist as most people understand the term. Please read more into it.
Reply • 7 •
• January 15 at 4:18pm
o
John Dubose • Top Commenter • Houston, Texas
Hitler's party called it self National Socialist. They took over EVERYTHING. Sounds pretty socialist to me.
Reply • 3 •
• January 29 at 6:59am

admin_pornrev: Site Admin; Posts: 832; Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:35 pm

LOW IQ & CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS LINKED TO PREJUDICE

by admin_pornrev » Sun Dec 28, 2014 1:59 pm

COMMENTS

Stephanie Buday
The Nazi Party was ultra right winged. It was the merger of corporation and state. It was not socialist in terms of its economic leanings as it did not redistribute the wealth in the form of social programs to benefit the people. If you want a comparison to actual socialism, look at the social democracies of Northern Europe (Sweden, Denmark, Norway...) that have the highest percentage of happy people on the planet.
Reply • 16 •
• February 17 at 4:29am
View 7 more
•
Ron Lazard • Kemp High School
I told you all....better look deep inside yourself.
Reply •
• October 20, 2012 at 6:33am
o
Rhonda Greenhaw • Kemp, Texas
I suspect a room full of Obamaites IQ would be slightly higher than a two day old donut.
Reply • 3 •
• October 20, 2012 at 6:31pm
o
Nigel Walsh
You illustrate the point of the article perfectly.
Reply • 15 •
• January 25 at 12:02pm
o
Mathew Sewell • Top Commenter • Vermillion, South Dakota
Case, meet point. Rhonda, meet case.
Reply • 6 •
• February 19 at 1:47pm
View 1 more
•
Alexander Adams
This study is flawed from what I can see. For example, many social conservatives live in rural areas which, on balance, people there have lower IQ (though they seem to apply intelligence better, and are more productive then most city folk. I really think they are smarter in their own merit... I don't see IQ a good measure of intelligence). However, I would like to note some of the smartest people in the world are social conservatives.

This study does not mean all conservatives are dumb and racist, however they are more likely to be that way (note this is flawed as the study likely included the non-average conservative).

Does anyone have a link to the study so I can check the merits? Regardless, the smartest people I know are social conservatives.
Reply • 3 •
• September 30, 2012 at 8:28pm
•
Brian Pearson • Top Commenter • West Texas A&M University
Glad to see the left, lumping everything together when it comes to Conservatives, as usual.
Reply • 1 •
• September 22, 2012 at 5:59pm
o
Nathan Kapusta • California State University, Fullerton
Hypocritical statement, much?
Reply • 7 •
• January 22 at 12:46pm
o
Jenn Whitford Palumbo • Top Commenter
http://iahymnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2 ... ervatives/
Reply • 1 •
• February 18 at 10:53pm
o
Harold Banks
Ha, you moron. Scroll to the bottom of the page you linked to.
Reply • 8 •
• February 24 at 7:57pm
•
Kimberley Broyles • Top Commenter
This may have already been asked, but I don't have time to read all 180+ comments to see. Could the study have been skewed by the fact that most liberals would likely answer what they thought was the "correct" answer to the questions designed to ferret out racism?
Reply • 1 •
• July 27, 2012 at 6:12am
o
Betsy Chase • Los Angeles, California
I think that proves the point then.
Reply • 1 •
• July 27, 2012 at 6:28am
o
Kimberley Broyles • Top Commenter
But it wouldn't that skew data if they did not answer honestly about their feelings because of a desire to answer in line with liberal ideology?
Reply •
• July 27, 2012 at 6:40am
o
Kimberley Broyles • Top Commenter
I totally get the IQ thing as it factors in many things. I just don't know about the liberal vs. conservative thing.
Reply •
• July 27, 2012 at 6:42am
View 9 more
•
David Starkey • Top Commenter • 147 subscribers
Oh, one other thing: It is far easier to pass bigotry to the next generation of kids, if they aren't taught to THINK for themselves.
Reply • 6 •
• June 30, 2012 at 8:08am
o
Cary Ryerson
no kidding.........................
Reply •
• June 30, 2012 at 10:55am
•
David Starkey • Top Commenter • 147 subscribers
It does make sense, personally. I became politically aware at age 11, in 1968. But I had been arguing for equality a long time by then. I am old enough to have been called "Nigger Lover" & smart enough to consider it a compliment. I was smart enough to get into Mensa, in fact.
It's pretty hard to be smart & STILL not question or analyze controversial issues. In fact, when I was an atheist, then agnostic, I wasn't worried about being wrong. After all, how could I be faulted for using the mind God gave me - to question his existence.
Reply • 1 •
• June 30, 2012 at 8:06am
•
David Starkey • Top Commenter • 147 subscribers
THEY ARE MORE THAN JUST DUMB - THEY HAVE NO EMPATHY. THAT COULD MAKE THEM DANGEROUS.
Reply • 5 •
• June 30, 2012 at 8:01am
o
Virginia Krenn • Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Many years ago, one of my professors stated that people hold prejudices so that they will have someone to feel superior to.
Reply • 4 •
• June 30, 2012 at 8:07am
o
David Starkey • Top Commenter • 147 subscribers
that is another reason - low self esteem
Sometimes it manifests itsself as one spouse tearing down the others self image, because they don't know how to build their own up.
[Don't ask me how I know that.]
Reply • 2 •
• June 30, 2012 at 8:10am
o
Stephanie Cubsfan • Top Commenter • Official uniform inspector and dresser for Chicago teams at Uniform Inspector for the Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls and NU.
As opposed to the mindless Obama voter?
Reply •
• January 27 at 1:50pm
View 1 more
•
Gerry Bell • Algonquin College
It supports much of which I have noticed and notated. It seems that it is equally as difficult to find a high IQ Conservative as it is to find a low IQ liberal.
Reply • 5 •
• May 29, 2012 at 10:08pm
o
Stephanie Cubsfan • Top Commenter • Official uniform inspector and dresser for Chicago teams at Uniform Inspector for the Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls and NU.
Hate hate hate from the brainless Gerry Bell.
Reply •
• January 27 at 1:51pm
o
Scotty James • Works at HF Group, Heckman Bindery
Stephanie Cubsfan
Takes me back to the days of name calling on the playground. Thank you for the trip down memory lane.....
Reply •
• March 29 at 5:01am
•
Gerry Bell • Algonquin College
This study supports much of what I have noticed and notated.
Reply • 2 •
• May 29, 2012 at 10:00pm
•
team_infidel2k (signed in using yahoo)
This is what this 'study' used to define a 'conservative'...LMFAO!

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.)

Total and Epic FailStudy.
Reply • 1 •
• May 24, 2012 at 11:06am
•
Patrick Beauchamp • Fort Peck Community College
Living here I know it to be true. :-)

:-)

Reply •
• May 5, 2012 at 8:03pm
•
Diego Baner
it is not difficult to agree 100%. Excellent article!
Reply • 2 •
• April 27, 2012 at 6:07am
•
Chris Wensaut
Well that's pretty obvious.
Reply • 4 •
• April 13, 2012 at 9:56am
•
Catharine Chen • S.F. State
People are just stupid or racists? they might be both.
Reply •
• April 3, 2012 at 1:52pm
•
Bruce Garrick • Top Commenter
Conservatives are no prejudiced. Republicans fought for the end of slavery. Democrats fought to prevent the Civil Rights act of 64 and the Voter's Rights Act of 65.
http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/
The whole idea that Republicans are racist is a lie. Democrats are the party of racism.
Reply • 2 •
• April 1, 2012 at 9:29am
o
Andrew Bollinger • Law Clerk at White and Williams LLP
Please point to the part of the article mentioning republicans and democrats. thanks in advance
Reply • 4 •
• January 25 at 8:09pm
o
Stephanie Cubsfan • Top Commenter • Official uniform inspector and dresser for Chicago teams at Uniform Inspector for the Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls and NU.
the democrats want to make sure the poor stay that way.
Reply •
• January 27 at 1:51pm
o
Manza Da Kanza
Bruce, you obviously have no concept of the idea of political dynamism or a knowledge of the political history of this country. The Republican party was a fairly progressive party for many years in the beginning. "Republican" is not always synonymous with "conservative" and likewise with "Democrat" not always being synonymous with "progressive (liberal)." Abraham Lincoln's policies, as a whole, stand in stark contrast to the current party ideology.

Around the 1930's and onward, the political dynamic of both parties evolved, with the Democrats becoming more progressive and the Republicans becoming more conservative. President Eisenhower was the last progressive Republican president. Look at his policies if you don't believe me. Around the 1970's, Nixon initiated the Southern Strategy, which basically claimed the holdout old-sc...See More
Reply • 1 •
• April 25 at 9:37pm
•
Mary Scully • 669 subscribers
This is junk science and I have written to the "scientists" and told them so in no uncertain terms. The so-called science of measuring IQ is nonsense. And there is even less science in this pathetic study which insults those with learning disabilities who in fact tend to have greater insight into and opposition to discrimination. The self advocacy movement--the human rights movement of those with learning disabilities--easily puts this junk science to shame.
Reply •
• March 24, 2012 at 2:20am
•
Thomas Sullivan • Works at Worldwide Technology Solutions
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.
Reply • 1 •
• March 22, 2012 at 1:41pm
•
Abdul Guuled • Top Commenter • The University of Western Ontario
Racist and often conservative people attacking a scientific study? Not a surprise. Racist and often conservative people attacking a scientific study that shows a solid relationship between their views and lower IQ level? Even less of a surprise.

Many policy decisions that benefit the proper functioning of societies rely on scientific studies that use time tested methodologies. They don't attack when these studies are used to make policy decisions to plan resource allocation etc.., but when those same methodologies are used to build a data set that shows connections between low IQ and racist views they attack it? Frankly, I am not surprised.
Reply • 2 •
• March 18, 2012 at 3:23pm
•
Levar Patrick
People unable to handle change in a rational way are resistant to it.
Reply • 2 •
• March 1, 2012 at 8:03am
•
Robert Stoptaxinme Simpson • Top Commenter • Developer at Android Market • 109 subscribers
PROPAGANDA!
Reply • 1 •
• February 27, 2012 at 2:16pm
•
Robert Stoptaxinme Simpson • Top Commenter • Developer at Android Market • 109 subscribers
Racism was created by "intelligent" demagogues to divide the working class and keep us preoccupied at the bottom of the social hierachy while they establish new laws that conflict with the Constitution so that they can "legally" wage war against us and people abroad.
Reply • 1 •
• February 27, 2012 at 2:15pm
o
Josh Deeds • Top Commenter • Ohio State
Anonymous, you are not.
Reply • 1 •
• February 25 at 10:11pm
•
zebrotha (signed in using yahoo)
The reason for _racism_ is not IQ, low or high, but a basic _error_ that assumes the _contextual premise_ of "race” and “racial identity” controls reality... it doesn’t. Thinking in terms of “races” and “racial identities” does not prove the existence of races nor racial identities, rather this error obscures the existence of individual identity and creates “a racist,” who believes that human identity skips back and forth between personal identity and racial identity to accommodate intellectual context. That is precisely what this author has done, never touching the subject of racism and its origins, but limiting her analysis to bigotry within her reality contradicting context of “races” as existing human entities. The result is an article that claims that the “remedy” to racism is to think in terms of stereotypical ...See More
Reply •
• February 18, 2012 at 1:01pm
•
Marc Authier
FWIW, I found, years ago, the same thinking in my field, energy analysis. It is an interesting thing to do for a living, as it forces you to broaden the scope of your thinking, and to ditch your personal bias as to 'the way things ought to be' as quickly as possible...or else you go broke, and fast! What I find is that most of the folks I know who seek a simple solution, for a complex problem, at least in this arena, tend to come out as 'conservative' at some point. I find this amusing, as, at least when it comes to energy, they are anything but conservative. I have found the same confirmation bias with this group when it comes to AGW discussions. And for remarkably similar reasons: not caring to check that the 'people against liberal climate scientists' was funded by Exxon Mobil, or equivocating that the relatively tiny nu...See More
Reply • 1 •
• February 16, 2012 at 10:27am
o
Lisa Lang Rice • Tucson, Arizona
4 hours......
Reply •
• February 16, 2012 at 3:00pm
o
Marc Authier
Yes, I'm barricading the door as I type, well that and opening some wine.
Reply •
• February 16, 2012 at 3:02pm
o
Marc Authier
Dave, you will just have to trust me when I say that I am both aware of the effect, and NOT immune to it myself. And, FWIW, I do not place you in this category. You are, and always have been, a kind, non-judgmental, and remarkably open minded human being. But with that said, I stand by my earlier statement. Though my perspective is rather confined to what I do, I did not use this study as a guide for my own thinking, as my thoughts were probably formed 6-8 years ago. And have been solidified by watching the parallel, but related human arguments over AGW. Most people I know who(in this context) who stand by their position without either critical thinking, assimilating the best data we currently have of it, or simply mistrust science in general, are almost invariably self-described conservatives. And, separately(and preceding) this study, folks that likes their rules simple and unambiguous do not seem to relate well to the inherent complexities of human being and energy. This is not surprising, as its a vast human endeavor, the biggest, in fact. Its just that, in the long term, or even medium term, it is decidedly unhelpful...and we don't have a lot of time to dick around here. The belief that we only have to drill to get as much oil as we need, if only the liberal treehuggers would curl up and die is not going to feed 7 billion people. We are in desperate need of reality-based thinking, and time is running out.
Reply •
• February 16, 2012 at 9:24pm
View 1 more
•
Jenya Ys • Top Commenter • College of Idaho
As far as the issue of social/political extremism goes, I wonder if we look at it from a skewed perspective? We imagine it as a line with two polar opposites. But what if we're only willing to look at it as a comfortable 2 dimensional model? Perhaps, it is a long line that curves eventually into a circle. Extremists on both sides generally desire the same things: power and control; they may use different rhetoric and methods to get them-- well, that doesn't really matter, does it? Hitler was a leader of Socialist Party and considered himself a conservative Christian at the same time. And although he is responsible and should be blamed for the things he did, we often forget: he was ONE man. It is the cooperation and complicity of others that resulted in so many tragedies and made all of his dreams nearly come true. Catholic Inquisitors and Soviet Communists are worlds apart, at first glance, yet both groups destroyed entire cultures, tortured and killed so many people that we still don't know the numbers for sure; and probably never will.
Reply •
• February 9, 2012 at 6:34am
•
Stocker (signed in using Hotmail)
I just want to say that any comments previously made by "Keriane Stocker" has been made by a HACKED ACCOUNT. it is quite disturbing that someone used my name and posted ideas and opinions under false pretenses. I can't understand why someone would need to do such a thing. the only reason I found out about this was because Ii was getting notifications on my facebook account about everyone's replies and "likes". whether you've agreed or disagreed with the previous comments made under my name, I just wanted to apologize and notify you that they were are not from the real "Keriane Stocker". measures have been made and this should be the last comment from me as I do not frequent this site. I will also be deleting all comments made falsely in my name. thank you. and I apologize again for the misunderstanding.
Reply • 1 •
• February 9, 2012 at 12:01am
•
Sidoe Dukemajian • Executive Chef at Brite Spot
If Liberals are so smart, why can't they figure out how to use a ballot? See 2000 Florida Presidential Election, 2004 Washington Gubernatorial Election, 2008 Minnesota Senate Election. If Liberals are so smart, why are those with no high school diploma overwhelmingly Democrats? I think this study revealed more about the political beliefs of the researchers than anything else.
Reply •
• February 8, 2012 at 6:27am
•
Jason Podgorski
Interesting...
Reply • 2 •
• February 7, 2012 at 5:39pm
•
Tracey Aithwaite • Nottingham, United Kingdom
would of thought it was mainly ignorance that lead to racism, for instance we in the UK are been told that the Muslims are bad throughout the media, many of us are too ignorant to care so believe what we are told a small amount of us would look into their religion and realize that the Taliban are not Muslims at all. But because the majority do not care will not shed another thought on it but will turn racist towards every foreigner.
Reply • 4 •
• February 6, 2012 at 7:06pm
•
Steve Grossman • Senior Executive - Marketing at Steve Grossman Online
I've read every comment and am surprised no one has questioned this: "According to the article above, “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.”".

So, I ask you:

Who can honestly say ”Family Life” benefits from a parent or parents being out of the house for 40, 50, or 60+ hours a week? I know it's a reality of today's world, but family life suffers.

And when did it become a bad thing for schools to teach children to obey authority? More importantly, when did it become a GOOD thing for children (or adults) not to obey authority?

Is anyone else saddened by these being considered evidence of wrong thinking?
Reply • 2 •
• February 6, 2012 at 12:11pm
o
Lara Wilkinson • Top Commenter • Swinburne University of Technology
I couldn't see anywhere in the article that it said those things were evidence of wrong thinking. Just that they were examples of conservative values.
Reply • 1 •
• May 12, 2012 at 10:55pm
•
Michael Johnson • Top Commenter
Maybe that's why it's so easy to discredit conservative arguments!

http://powerlineiswrong.wordpress.com/
Reply • 3 •
• February 5, 2012 at 2:58pm
•
Pat Allen • The University of Texas at Austin
This came out a couple of weeks back, but...here is again in case you misses it. As the authors say, these observations are trends. They certainly don't apply to every individual of any given group. But...I guess I do prefer being in the more intellectual group. I mean, who wants to sit on the "Group W Bench" anyway?
Reply • 2 •
• February 5, 2012 at 8:13am
•
Brandon Heslop • Top Commenter • Grand Inquisitor at The Great Dragon, destroyer of worlds.
From the WSJ: TheRoot.com has an article arguing that the Republican presidential candidates are racist. It's about as uninteresting an argument as you can find--but the headline is revealing: "Colorblind Racism: The New Norm." That Orwellian term, "colorblind racism," is the pithiest summation we've ever encountered of the absurdity of contemporary left-liberal racial dogma.

It also turns out to be a product of academia: The idea of "colorblind racism" was hatched by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a professor of sociology at Duke University, a decade ago. Here's a paper on the subject from the journal Critical Sociology.

The higher education industry's credential cartel is under financial threat owing to the necessity of state and local (and eventually federal) budget cuts and the increasing sense that a degree isn't worth incurring...See More
Reply •
• February 4, 2012 at 9:24pm
o
Brandon Heslop • Top Commenter • Grand Inquisitor at The Great Dragon, destroyer of worlds.
http://faustasblog.com/?p=28708
Reply •
• February 4, 2012 at 9:30pm
•
Jeffrey Imm • Top Commenter • Washington, District of Columbia
Are you aware that White Nationalists use the same type of "IQ study" argument to rationalize racist hatred? How sad that others use the same tactics and arguments. Please reconsider.

The answer to hate is love.

Choose Love, Not Hate - Love Wins.
Reply • 1 •
• February 4, 2012 at 6:48am
•
Chuck Stone • Top Commenter • University at Albany, SUNY
This adds to other previous studies "proving" one group is superior to another via a scholarly study by "experts". Remeber Dr Jensen's studies that "scientifically proved" Whites are more intelligent and have higher IQ's than Blacks, or Nazi studies that "proved" due to skull size, shape and other factors that Jews, Russians, Gypsies and homosexuals were inferior to Aryan whites, Karl Marx's ideology that many adhere to still today that religious people have lower intelligence, or historically other cultures that "proved" one group was more intelligent than another hated group. If you are feeling pretty smug about this study....you're in "good" company...
Reply •
• February 3, 2012 at 10:07pm
•
Jamie Shafer • Top Commenter • Wellesley College
I have 3 adult children: all three are successful in life and all three are highly intelligent: over 140, 139, and 121. ALL are conservative and 2 are Tea Party. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you Progressives!
Reply • 1 •
• February 3, 2012 at 4:11pm
•
Vivian Louise Brockwell
Hilariously, the study doesn't mention that bias, prejudice and racism cross the political spectrum quite evenly. Hmmm, wonder why THAT happened.
Reply •
• February 3, 2012 at 12:59pm
•
Bill Beer • IUP
Studies in Canada and UK.
Reply •
• February 3, 2012 at 11:45am
•
April Gaede • Top Commenter • Reedley High School
I don't believe this since minorities generally vote Democrat and minorities ( blacks and Hispanics, not Asians) inherently score lower on IQ tests. Thus it makes sense that Democrats on average would be less intelligent than Republicans.
Reply • 1 •
• February 2, 2012 at 7:15pm
o
Sofia de Magalhães • Top Commenter • Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa (FLUL)
What exactly is your definition of "White"? Where from must someone be, so that they're considered White and not Hispanic, Black or Asian? Or is it a skin color thing? Just how white does your skin need to be for you to be considered a White?
Reply • 3 •
• September 25, 2012 at 7:23pm
o
Maria Morrissey • University of New Mexico
You don't believe science BECAUSE you are a racist adult and formerly low-intelligence child. Good luck with that.
Reply •
• May 9 at 6:44pm
•
De'Marcus Ibdul Jackson • Top Commenter • Lawrenceburg, Tennessee
Interesting.
Reply •
• February 2, 2012 at 5:55pm
•
Meghan 'Sporto' Verplank
This is a great study! Love the results
Reply •
• February 2, 2012 at 12:14pm
•
Ian Weiss • Astoria, New York
The size of the difference between liberals' and conservatives' cognitive abilities is generally small. For instance, the meta-analysis repeatedly cited in this paper as demonstrating a "reliable negative relation between cognitive ability and right-wing ideologies" only found effects which ranged from virtually 0 (e.g. for "cognitive complexity") to small (e.g. for "intelligence" and "cognitive ability"). To give you a sense of what I mean by "small", the size of the "effect" of ideology on cognitive ability was approximately the equivolent of about 3 or 4 points on a standard I.Q. test, or a little over 20 points on a single section of the SAT. There is nothing at all in the data presented in the current study that suggests that the intellectual differences between libs and cons is any bigger. So, Stephanie Pappas' use of the terms "Low IQ" and "dumb" are terribly misleading in the context of a comparison between people of different political ideologies.
Reply • 1 •
• February 2, 2012 at 10:08am
•
James Savik • Top Commenter • Field Engineer at Field Engineer
It's way too easy to say that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

If liberal ideas were so wonderful, why is the economy still on life support after 3 years of O'bumble?
Reply •
• February 2, 2012 at 10:04am
•
Jamie Jazzer • Top Commenter
Yet when there's decent intelligence being a Conservative can lead to surprising breakthroughs.
Take, for example, David Cameron the leader of the Conservative Party here in the United Kingdom, who took office as UK Prime Minster in 2010. Speaking at the Conservative Party conference in 2011 he said,
"I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage. And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative."
Reply • 2 •
• February 2, 2012 at 9:39am
•
Liz Stellaphile • Chicago State University
lol
Reply •
• February 2, 2012 at 9:16am
•
Marianne Swartz • Herrhagsskolan Karlstad
Claro
Reply •
• February 2, 2012 at 7:47am
•
Marianne Swartz • Herrhagsskolan Karlstad
Sjalvklart
Reply •
• February 2, 2012 at 7:46am
•
Joseph Dooley • Top Commenter • Technical Writer at Lockheed Martin
I didn't realize homophobia is "conservative." You might think this if you foolishly equate the definition of marriage to homophobia.
Reply •
• February 2, 2012 at 5:22am
•
Eduardo Santibanez • Top Commenter
The replies here are the proof that was needed to validate this study, hory shet!
Quote Apocalypse Now: "the horror, the horror" but in this case it should read "the grammar, the grammar".
Look at them conservatives trying to defend their "we not dumb" position all while making misspellings left and right. How in the fuck can you justify that a Mexican like me, can spell better in than you? GB2 school and this time mingle with the colored kids.
Reply • 4 •
• February 1, 2012 at 12:39pm
•
Cheryl Neely • Professor of Sociology at Oakland Community College (Official)
This article got the response it predicted! Conservatives are outraged and attacking the legitimacy of this study...further confirmation of their resistance to change and information that challenges their notions. SMH!
Reply • 2 •
• February 1, 2012 at 9:56am
•
James Quirk • Top Commenter • University of Minnesota
Ok...This is the kind of study that can be taken very, very wrong. If this study found that lack of exposure to certain groups causes misunderstandings and prejudices I could agree wholeheartedly. If it further found that people with lower IQs are generally more fearful of change and of "others" I might be willing to consider it. Unfortunately the author dipped into political thought which is always perilous. This article it can easily be used as validation by some that all liberals are the smart all-accepting ones and conservatives are stupid bigots. And while the study tries to back off that conclusion - one look at the comments here shows that that is what some people have taken from the article. It makes it a very flawed and dangerous study.
Reply •
• February 1, 2012 at 8:59am
•
Dan Kelly • Moultrie Technical College
Wow I see this site is totally pro-liberal. I think this will be my last visit here..
Reply •
• January 31, 2012 at 3:48am
•
Jono Leonard • University of Sydney
Interesting. Could I get a link (or at lest a reference) to the actual research you're basing this on?
Reply •
• January 31, 2012 at 12:16am
•
Nazira Nh • Northwest Missouri State University
the Study is true and obvious and we can see it everyday.
Reply • 1 •
• January 30, 2012 at 10:07pm
•
Tony Westover • Top Commenter
There are obviously so many things wrong with the study that deserve laughter, but the funniest irony here is that IQ scores are used to correlate whether a person is more likely to be racist. The *entire* point of IQ tests is to confirm a bias, and its original bias was that White Americans are smarter than black Americans and immigrants in America -- which was a belief pushed by Progressive racists in academia. Continuing with its anti-intellectual use, now IQs are used in a variety of ways by lazy people in academia to show that "stupid" people are racist or "stupid" people are conservative. Funny how none of them bother to bring up that using these same tests, white people frequently outscore black people. So where are all the studies on how stupid black people are? Well they're not trying to exploit IQ tests to push that agenda.

If any of these lazy people actually understood intelligence, they'd know that intelligence is so multifaceted and spans a variety of areas that trying to assign a single number to measure and compare it is itself lazy and completely worthless. Hell, even attributing "education" as some measure of intelligence is worthless. You know where Mark Zuckerberg hangs his Harvard degree? No where, because it doesn't fuckin' exist. What a moron, huh? Maybe he can borrow George W. Bush's.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 3:54pm
•
Tony Westover • Top Commenter
"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."

And the supposed smarty pants who wrote this made an obvious grammatical error.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 3:26pm
•
Sabrina M Messenger • Top Commenter • Administrative Professional at Undisclosed Location
Of course, this doesn't explain the allegedly "smart" people who incite the incidents of racism on college campus you read about in the media.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 3:26pm
•
Logan Fegenbush • Top Commenter • University of California, Santa Barbara
Nice and inflammatory title. Social conservatism!= conservatism.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 1:49pm
•
Deborah Alfano • Top Commenter
It sounds like someone with a low IQ did this study. This is the kind of article/study that the schools used to use to use to say whites were smarter than blacks but now it is used to say a conservative is less intelligent than a liberal.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 1:30pm
•
Terrence Ashwill • Top Commenter • Server at Outlaws Bar & Grill
I always knew conservatives were retarded.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 12:10pm
o
Tony Westover • Top Commenter
Yeah, all the smart people work at Subway, huh.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 3:58pm
o
Terrence Ashwill • Top Commenter • Server at Outlaws Bar & Grill
Tony Westover I used to work at subway. Don't be mean you big meanie or else I might have to suck your weenie!
Reply • 1 •
• January 31, 2012 at 8:21am
•
Abe Goldstein • Top Commenter • City College of New York
This finding makes very good sense. Jews, for instance, have clearly demosnstrable higher IQ's than any other group, and we are reliably liberal. We embrace and lead changes that make society a better place. Our creative thinking leads to more Nobel Prizes per capita, and more billionaires per capita, than any other group.
Reply • 1 •
• January 30, 2012 at 11:01am
o
Tony Westover • Top Commenter
Well that was pleasantly racist :-)

:-)

Reply • 1 •
• January 30, 2012 at 3:59pm
o
Abe Goldstein • Top Commenter • City College of New York
Thanks Mr Westover!
Reply •
• February 15, 2012 at 8:41pm
•
David Dunn • Top Commenter • University of Louisville
This goes along with John Stewart Mill's observation that "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative."
Reply • 2 •
• January 30, 2012 at 10:37am
•
Ryan Russon • Coral Springs, Florida
I have to wonder if part of the correlation would be explained by lower IQ individuals having jobs more amenable to listening to talk radio all day. These conservative dominated shows and their televised counterparts are more prone to simple (non-nuanced), emotionally charged, repetitive messages, often presented as fact rather than opinion.
Reply • 3 •
• January 30, 2012 at 8:59am
•
Nick Erardi • Johns Hopkins
Love how the article's title doesn't differentiate between the fiscal and social sides of Conservative thought. Might be prudent to lead with that, instead of a couple paragraphs down. Can't imagine how many Libertarians are fuming right now.
Reply • 1 •
• January 30, 2012 at 8:40am
•
Bea Amor
I come from South Africa and I am an "Afrikaner". I grew up in a house filled with really conservative, church going folk. I was surrounded by people afraid of their own shadows who NEVER mixed with black people except the help. I know all about prejudice and have to fight daily to not let that color my view of the world - especially since I now see it happening in reverse - although what there is to fear from a minority is beyond me. I have to agree that there seems to be a correlation between prejudice and intellectual ability because those with intellectual ability in South Africa seemed to question the status quo and worked to change it. Those who did not accept other races also seemed to be exceedingly conservative and still display that leaning. So there is a seeming correlation. I do think however that the comment that ex...See More
Reply • 4 •
• January 30, 2012 at 7:42am
o
Louise H Mowder • Top Commenter • President at Self employed
This is a wonderful post.You are absolutely correct that "it is time for liberals and conservatives in this, my new country, to stand together to solve problems." A huge part of the problem here is that Conservatives have been encouraged for 20 years to distrust anything the non-Conservative media says, and to reject scientific findings and studies. How can we solve a crisis like climate change if one large group refuses to believe that it is actually occurring? When facts are rejected out of hand because of their source?

For instance, you will hear Conservatives in this country aver, with absolute sincerity, that Liberals hate work, and don't want anyone to work, but just to get handouts from the government. All one would have to do is look around at all the hard-working Liberals to see that falsehood of the belief, but it doesn't happen. How do you make "out of many, one" when the many cannot even decide on common facts?
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 4:08pm
o
Jenya Ys • Top Commenter • College of Idaho
Bea Amor Thank you for being a rare voice of reason in these comments! And I admire your willingness to share that you struggle not to fall into prejudices.
Reply • 1 •
• February 9, 2012 at 6:18am
•
bbhishma (signed in using yahoo)
The word 'conservative' is a euphemism for 'rigid/narrow minded - not pliable to change' thinker (the word 'thinker' here is an oxymoron). Since it is politically incorrect (besides hurtful) and something one can not be proud off to say "I am a rigid minded idiot", they have a soft and acceptable word for such called 'conservative' - which simply means (dictionary) "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."
Similarly a 'belief' by definition is a point at which a person 'stops thinking'! Soon there will be a 'controversial study' that links low IQ (intelligence) with 'belief oriented people' (religion)! The controversy is simply that an 'idiot' is the weakest link in the society who people need to deal with without calling him 'idiot' - lest he does real 'idiotic' things

Reply • 2 •
• January 30, 2012 at 6:48am
•
Noor Anbari
Sure, and man made global warming is real and Al Gore invented the internet.
Reply • 1 •
• January 30, 2012 at 6:39am
•
bbhishma (signed in using yahoo)
The word 'conservative' is a euphemism for 'rigid/narrow minded - not pliable to change' thinker (the word 'thinker' here is an oxymoron). Since it is politically incorrect (besides hurtful) and something one can not be proud off to say "I am a rigid minded idiot", they have a soft and acceptable word for such called 'conservative' - which simply means (dictionary) "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."
Similarly a 'belief' by definition is a point at which a person 'stops thinking'! Soon there will be a 'controversial study' that links low IQ (intelligence) with 'belief oriented people' (religion)! The controversy is simply that an 'idiot' is the weakest link in the society who people need to deal with without calling him 'idiot' - lest he does real 'idiotic' things

Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 6:35am
•
electric_power_grid (signed in using yahoo)
Most studies are gone into with a bias towards the desired outcome, and I bet this study was done by liberals.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0020124.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 3:04am
•
Kevin Burd Burdeshaw • Spawn of the Public School System
This Explains the continuing attack on Education by conservatives. It also explains their opposition to things like teaching Evolution in Science class, they obviously can't grasp the concept-so Magic must be a better explanation.
Reply • 1 •
• January 30, 2012 at 2:12am
•
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Has anyone bothered to think of what the results would be in a "left-wing" country if "conservative" (and therefore left-wing) views were held, say for example in Sweden, where Leftist ideas are heavily entrenched? It would follow the "sheeple" there would be very "left-wing" sounding, but just as ignorant.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 1:22am
•
Conwaythe Contaminationist • Top Commenter • Works at Toxic Incorporated
Fascinating; this amusing article could have been penned by Goebbels himself.
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 11:37pm
•
Ray Gill • Top Commenter
My theory has been confirmed, Republicans ARE LOW IQ INDIVIDUALS, as their ideology and rabid support groups have proclaimed over the years through their PREJUDICE and ALL WHITE MEMBERSHIP, save for token non-white members....YES it is TRUE the REPUBLICAN (AKA REPUGNICAN )GOP is a lower than average I Q political party...known as the "CONSERVATIVE" party...now REPUGS refute that...Right AMERICA?
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:57pm
o
Tony Westover • Top Commenter
Get a job.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 4:03pm
•
Keith Brich • Grace NE
And low IQ and liberal beliefs tend to be linked toward prejudice the other way. At least, that's what the anecdotal evidence seems to support.
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:39pm
•
Slicerpro Ullname
Based on the reactions, it is clear that this study has pitted people of a particular gender and race against everybody else.
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:34pm
•
Thomas Alan Langley • Top Commenter • Western Kentucky University
What a crock. You have undoubtedly liberal "researchers" publishing "research" that validates their point of view & dismisses views on the right which they abhor. I would be willing to bet that there was more than a little bias in the questions that were asked. Glenn Beck has already been mentioned as a conservative intellectual. William F. Buckley Jr, Milton Freidman, F.A. Hayek, Charles Krauthammer, Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol, & A. de Borgrave are a few conservative intellectual heavyweights among many others who come to mind. Later in the article extremism on both the extreme left & the extreme right were mentioned as gravitating to people of low intelligence, that I could accept. Some of the "occupy" folks that I have seen interviewed on tv wouldn't exactly be Mensa material.
Reply • 1 •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:06pm
•
Lynda McDaniels
I guess what that means is if you are on the receiving end of the racism I can do a study that shows if you have a low IQ and you are told the gov will save you from this, if you vote for the gov to feed and cloth on welfare assistance you will never have to get a job.
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:00pm
•
Rik Warren • Top Commenter • Atlanta, Georgia
This is not news. John Stewart Mills quote rings true; "Conservatives are not stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives".
Reply • 4 •
• January 29, 2012 at 6:46pm
•
Tom Reyner • Top Commenter • Drury College, Kansas University
This is not at all surprising but I'm not sure that intelect alone is the issue. Imagination plays a huge role in world view and perception. The two must be combined. I have met some very intelligent folks who had no imagination whatever as well as some who were very imaginitive but not very bright. Those who have both attributes tend to be more progressive while those lacking in both tended to be more conservative. I'm sure that there was some personal bias there but some truth as well.

admin_pornrev: Site Admin; Posts: 832; Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:35 pm

LOW IQ & CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS LINKED TO PREJUDICE

by admin_pornrev » Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:01 pm

COMMENTS

• January 29, 2012 at 6:16pm
•
Elizabeth Stein • Top Commenter
It is irresponsible journalism to make such assertions without referencing the studies specifically enough that we can look at them and try to determine whether or not they are legitimate. This is nothing more than propaganda.
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 5:49pm
•
Dave Randall • MacMurray College
Well, if conseratives are the stupid ones, why were liberals and Democrats the only ones who had trouble voting in Florida in 2000? Republicans didn't have any problems with the "butterfly ballot," but the highly intelligent liberals couldn't even push a pin through the right hole! LMAO!
Reply • 1 •
• January 29, 2012 at 2:16pm
•
Marian Elaine Melby Aanerud • Top Commenter • Teaching Specialist at University of Minnesota Rochester
Yeah - there really are better ways to say this. Please just take "dumb' and "stupid" out of your vocabulary, especially when you are writing about bigotry and prejudice. I can accept that my son, who has a traumatic brain injury, might gravitate toward groups that have simplistic world views as an adult. I'm not so keen on an article using the term "dumb" in the first paragraph specifically to draw in the reader, and act as though there isn't a more reasonable way of saying it. Considering the (relatively well known) historical usage of the word "dumb" - it's even more obnoxious. I attempt not to be hyper-sensitive about that language, since it is pretty pervasive - but c'mon.
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 12:12pm
•
Mimi Champlin • Top Commenter • Castle Shannon, Pennsylvania
Where is the study itself?
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 9:54am
•
Terry Salmon Fitzgerald Owens • Villanova University
I would love to have a link to the original studies. That way we could determine how many people were in the study, the article doesn't make it clear if it is ten people or ten thousand, which makes a tremendous difference. Also, the questions, at least those revealed in the article leave a lot of wiggle room. For example, was the fact that more intellectually sophisticated people might be more likely to well, lie, about a straightforward question such as "Would you work with a person from...." taken into account. Also, what was the range of IQ studied, and was there a continuum from low IQ to high IQ that correlated with increasing liberalism? And I would love to see more of the questions as I am a card carrying liberal but I agree with the "conservative" answer to both questions that were revealed in the article.
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:13am
•
Randy Tolleson • Top Commenter • B/S Business Administration University of Phoenix
Did the study assess those people who confuse correlation with cause?
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 7:36am
•
King Cobe • Top Commenter • Middle River, Maryland
"Shocking."
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 5:30am
•
Ronald Turck • Killeen, Texas
I never like to associate attitudes and biases with genetics. This study does not explain the ready acceptance of others so often seen in the mentally challenged. It does show that opening up societies rather than closing them down will go a long way in ending prejudice. I will concede that the cognitively challenged are more manipulable simply by virtue of their not being more educated. In other words we smarties manipulate language better than they do and then use that against them when we can.
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 4:24am
•
Jay Butterfield (signed in using Hotmail)
http://hodson.socialpsychology.org/...very unbiased gentleman we have here......facepalm.
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 10:43pm
•
Christian Hargrove • Boston, Massachusetts
It's "vicious circle" not "cycle," unless you are referring to the godawful 2003 album by Lynyrd Skynyrd. You dummy.
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 9:00pm
•
Noel Sundby • Top Commenter • Construction Worker at Laborer
The study is essentially inconclusive, but the opinion based on the study definitely shows a bias toward the conservative. While it is interesting, the criteria that measures what is conservative and what is liberal is important but has so many variables it make the opinion just that. Opinion. It always amazes me when I see people leap onto the hate the right band wagon and use this kind of rubbish as an excuse to demean anyone on the right. Your stupid. Your a racist. You believe in God you neanderthal. What is this if not bigotry? The very same techniques were used by the nazis to demonize the jews. It's a cowards way of hiding their bigotry. But what do I know. I'm not a liberal so I MUST be a stupid, racist and incapable of thinking in reasonable terms....
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 8:44pm
•
Joseph Ryan Socarras • Top Commenter • Atomic Force Microscopy Lab Undergraduate Researcher at University of Miami
I could have told you without any need to conduct a study that people who don't think outside the box gravitate toward ideologies that don't push the envelope socially, academically, emotionally, etc.. It's very clear that this article was written in order to discredit Republican support, especially in light of the upcoming election. Even the title says "...Conservative Beliefs Linked To Prejudice..." No. Those who adhere blindly to conservative beliefs- as well as those who adhere blindly to liberal beliefs- tend to also adhere blindly to prejudice. The article exploits our inability to recognize and acknowledge causal fallacies.
Reply • 2 •
• January 28, 2012 at 8:11pm
•
Paul H Park • Top Commenter • Stonewall Jackson High School
Incompetent interpretation of the survey done by the author. For example "Vietnamese Americans aligned themselves with the Republican Party over the Democratic Party by a margin of 2-to-1, while the opposite was found to be true for Indian Americans and Chinese Americans." Avg IQ of the Chinese in China is said to be 100-105, yet they have high rates of ethnic and racial discrimination over there; however, they are in the minority here in the U.S. It is a nation of immigrants, yet immigrants do pose a threat to social mobility to those who do not obtain higher levels of education. Introduction of liberal bias to come to an interpretation to link homosexuality to the issue of prejudice using correlation alone.
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 7:00pm
•
Natalie Gallifrey Sharp • Top Commenter • Auditor at RGIS
But Obama... death panels... Muslims... mah... I need a nap.
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 6:39pm
•
Jason Barnish • Payson High School
Now I know why I rarely read comments after articles, a waste of 10 minutes of my life I will never get back. Well leftist, progressive, Marxist, whatever you all are going by at this point in time, you can have whatever progressive funded study done to help you "feel" better about yourselves, as for rational, free-thinking Libertarians like myself, we really do not care what you think about us. You can lie, cast dispersions, insults, fund felonious studies, whatever makes happy. We know that happiness comes from personal achievement, and the ability to help the causes we care about with said achievements. But you hold on to that participation trophy as hard as you like.
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 4:53pm
•
Louise H Mowder • Top Commenter • President at Self employed
It's obvious from the comments that "Liberals" think that "Conservatives are fearful, prejudiced, and not very smart. "Conservatives" think that "Liberals" are elitist stupid horses' asses. The Conservatives also have no problem insulting Liberals directly, and using every comment that sounds slightly Liberal as a reason to attack the writer's intelligence.

This bifurcation isn't new; it started back in the 1960s. But it's become a very profitable industry for a lot of well-paid people. There are whole channels and programs devoted to besmirching and degrading the "other half" of the country.

What I have wondered about for at least 20 years is where all this whipped-up hatred will end. What is even more astonishing is that both groups agree on so many issues politically! Yet they each accuse each other of holding positions which the other group does not - and on the basis of these false assumptions, hate each other even more.

Is it even possible for Americans to try to bridge that divide? Or are we all just so happy that we know who to hate and blame? After all, smug self-satisfaction from being "right" is very gratifying - for both sides. How can we compassionately listen to our fellow citizens, and actually live the Golden Rule when it comes to political and sociological discussions?
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 3:16pm
o
Kathryn Haskell • Yucaipa, California
A plague on both their eff-ing houses!
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 3:39pm
o
Louise H Mowder • Top Commenter • President at Self employed
Kathryn Haskell Well, we all have to live together. So rather than a plague, how about if we all have some "Opposite Days," where we experiment espousing the other side and see what is valid about it? I like Karen Armstrong's recommendations for getting along as well. http://www.ted.com/talks/karen_armstron ... ssion.html
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 5:09pm
o
Pseudonymous Smith • Top Commenter • Works at Haha, none of your business, ya stalkers (:
Funny you should bring up the Golden Rule. Ron Paul did that in the SC debates and was soundly booed.
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:25am
•
Hamshire Bartleman • University of Wikipedia
Headline: IQ tests prove conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

Liberals response: "HA! Take that you dumb conservatives. The science proves we are right."

Headline: IQ tests prove blacks are less intelligent than whites and Asians.

Liberals response: "WHAT? IQ tests are flawed and racist. They are absolutely worthless and can prove nothing. All races have the exact same average IQ (no matter what evolution might say to the contrary)."
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 1:34pm
o
Kathy Allison • Top Commenter • Puxico High
Let's be clear here, this is more than just opinion this is prejudice itself... ironic? Yes, but not just that, it's deadly dangerous as well. To dehumanize people according to their religious beliefs is not a new thing. This is propaganda and leads us down a very slippery slope because it appeals to what is most base in all of us. We do have prejudices based on experience, based on social interactions, one against the other whether it's racism , or sexism. That is to be human...but it can be overcome through tolerance and the desire to be better than we are. Let's all agree, none of us are without sin, none of us should throw stones.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 10:55am
o
Hamshire Bartleman • University of Wikipedia
Kathy Allison I didn't mention religion, nor did the article directly, so why did you respond to me?
Reply •
• January 31, 2012 at 11:15am
•
fenngibbon (signed in using api.screenname.aol.com)
As someone who's had a chance to listen to avowed liberals talk about black conservatives and conservative women, I can tell you any correlation between conservatism and racism or other types of bias is spurious: what you're really measuring is the correlation between political ideology and the willingness to lie.

Also, the definition of "prejudice" used in this study, if this article is anything to go by, is itself prejudiced. If you define prejudice to include bigotry against religious belief, for example, then I think you'd find somewhat different results.

The plain and simple truth is that everyone has prejudices and everyone has subjects about which they are conservative. The particular subsets of prejudices and conservative bugaboos examined in this study tells us far more about the authors of the study than society in general.
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 1:28pm
•
Steve Laplante • Top Commenter • Archbold High School
The 100 average IQ is for Whites, 90 for Afros and above 100 for Asians. Ever know a White Liberal who willing lived in an Afro Neighborhood? The only thing Liberals did for racial intergration was to bus other peoples children to innercity Schools. Liberals who say they are not racists are Phoneys.
Reply • 1 •
• January 28, 2012 at 9:28am
•
John Wheeler • Top Commenter • Phoenix, Arizona
I bet this made all the Liberal narcissists who think they are so superior feel much better. Liberals are far less tolerant -- After all they created Political Correctness, The Food Police, and now want to muzzle opposition. But Liberal scientists looking for science to back up their liberalism aren't fond of facts either. After all, Global warming is a science scam too.
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 4:51am
•
Roman Sizov • University of Massachusetts Boston
For some reason I'm not surprised :-)

:-)

Reply • 1 •
• January 28, 2012 at 3:07am
•
Steven Yde • Marketing at Wahl Clipper
I assume everyone read the study that found that liberalism is a mental disease?
Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 9:04pm
o
Louise H Mowder • Top Commenter • President at Self employed
Got a link to that?
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 4:10pm
•
Nikki Larson • Sarasota, Florida
WOW
Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 8:59pm
•
John Kawakami • Top Commenter • Los Angeles, California
Maybe it's not that low IQ people are conservative and racist, but that the conservative political establishment has decided to court the support of racists. Back in the middle of the 20th century, the Democrats had a lot of racists in their party, and at the time, the Democrats were considered the meatheads being led around by elitists. Today, the Republicans are considered the duped and slow being led around by the rich and conniving.
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 8:23pm
•
Jim Turner
"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."

Unfortunately, this reporting reflects a profound ignorance of both social science and statistical analysis.

By controlling for other variables, the researchers have demonstrated that a powerful relationship exists between low IQ, conservative values and prejudice. The" impossible experiment" is a red herring.

On causation, the question is which of 6 explanations are plausible.
Does prejudice cause low IQ?
Does prejudice cause conservative valu...See More
Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 6:21pm
•
Brien S Hamrick
When my kids were 2 years old they thought their connect the dots pages looked like something recognizable too. Seriously people...polling data, connected to IQ tests and not on the same people? This constitutes scientific study? And psychology wonders why other sciences think they are pseudo science. I'm pleased that my IQ is just high enough to see the through the obvious intent that the study was undertaken to reach this exact conclusion.

When I clicked on a link to get here I was greeted by a Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes pop up...Live Science must really believe they have the attention of the high IQ crowd (chuckles).
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 6:15pm
o
Sam Raisbeck • Top Commenter
simple note... you are here... iq barely high enough and all... second connect the dots are usually pictures that can be seen when the dots have been connected... the dots have been connected for you... can you see the picture yet?
Reply • 1 •
• January 31, 2012 at 9:24am
•
Right Klik • Top Commenter
Why did Obama gravitate to the racist teachings of Reverend Wright? Low IQ, bigoted left-wing ideology … or both?
Reply • 2 •
• January 27, 2012 at 6:10pm
o
Louise H Mowder • Top Commenter • President at Self employed
Have you actually read or listened to any of Rev. Wright's complete sermons or speeches? On what basis do you say that they are "racist teachings"? I have seen the same quote from him, edited heavily, but not much more. Have you? Or are you simply repeating what you have been told by sources you trust? Those sources may have their own agenda.
Reply • 5 •
• January 28, 2012 at 5:57pm
o
Right Klik • Top Commenter
Louise H Mowder I didn't sit in his church for 20 years, but I'm quite familiar with his racist teachings and his racist theology. Do you know what the word "racist" means?
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 1:54am
o
Louise H Mowder • Top Commenter • President at Self employed
Right Klik You say that you are "quite familiar with his racist teachings," All I am asking you is where you received this depth of knowledge. What do you believe Rev. Wright's teachings - overall - to be? What do you believe his theology to be?

And, yes, I am familiar with what the word "racist" means. to hold the belief that any one race is superior to all others, and therefore to demean, belittle, or harm members of the other race.
Reply • 1 •
• January 29, 2012 at 11:29am
•
Twankie Kirkpatrick • Anchorage, Alaska
Everyone's a little bit racist.
Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 5:43pm
•
Northern Solano Democratic-Club • Works at Solano County
Racism is an action of assumed power with prejudice. Prejudice is a simple behavior that can be negative or positive based on choice and information.
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 5:10pm
o
Northern Solano Democratic-Club • Works at Solano County
In terms of "assumed power with prejudice", it would be towards a different people or species of life. There are more races in this world than those of the diversity humanity.
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 5:13pm
•
Delanie Rybacki • Otis, Massachusetts
Tired of paying for section8,food stamps,welfare,un earned tax credits, free oil, free cell phone, free transportation, I guess I'm the idiot
Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 4:18pm
o
Justin Ratleff • Top Commenter • University of New Orleans
What you really should be tired of paying is the enormous military budget that our government is abusing. because that's where most of your taxes are going. So yeah, you are an idiot.
Reply • 3 •
• January 29, 2012 at 2:15pm
•
Susan Mae Zandofsky
This really doesn't surprise me. Just interesting to see it in a study!
Reply • 3 •
• January 27, 2012 at 3:51pm
•
Beverley Fehrenbacher • Top Commenter
Social conservative to me means morally upstanding, not promiscuous, with values that promote the safety and happiness of children in a family unit. They are typically respectful to others to their own detriment that that of society. I do not know who did this "study" but it is certifiable bunk. Talk about liberal junk science. The people that swallow the global warming, climate change dogma are to me the most lacking in intellectual honesty and ability see how they are being led by the power mongers that are making gazillions off their whipped up hysteria meant to do nothing but transfer America's wealth to their own pockets. Think Al Gore. Here is a man who claims the seas are going to swallow the coastlines, yet buys a house in Montecito, CA at sea level. Obvious he doesn't believe what he says.
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 3:15pm
•
Stephan Burton • University of Michigan
So people on the left believe in IQ, after all?

And here I thought we are all forbidden to believe that there was any such thing as "intelligence" - let alone that this nonexistent "intelligence" could be measured.

Silly me.
Reply • 6 •
• January 27, 2012 at 2:22pm
o
Louise H Mowder • Top Commenter • President at Self employed
You might be silly, if you truly believe that the position you outlined "we are all forbidden to believe that there was any such thing as "intelligence" - let alone that this nonexistent "intelligence" could be measured." is true. First of all, who "forbids" us? Debates in a few academic departments do not a social movement make. Are we supposed to judge all people in a group - whatever that group is - by the opinions held by a few? This seems to be a common approach among both sides: sneering at some preposterous assertion, as if all members of the group we want to besmirch actually held that belief.

This is a straw man argument, and you know it.
Reply • 3 •
• January 28, 2012 at 5:22pm
o
Stephan Burton • University of Michigan
@Louise H Mowder - I simply have no idea what point you think you're trying to make.
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 6:46pm
o
Louise H Mowder • Top Commenter • President at Self employed
Stephan Burton Simply that there is no one who is "forbidding us 'to believe that there was any such thing as 'intelligence'" Name even one person who is advocating this outlandish idea.This is a straw man argument.
Reply • 1 •
• January 31, 2012 at 12:49am
View 2 more
•
David Brockett • Top Commenter • Muenster, Texas
I can PROVE this hypothesis 100% of the time: Socially liberal people with low IQ's are more prone to commit violent crime and have children out of wedlock...my population? The ghetto...now what have I REALLY proven? That is is possible to produce biased results with a cor-relational study using two LABELS to establish a third label! Social "science" is not science at all but it does go a long way towards developing damaging labels and establishing schisms within a society...I remember when livescience would have never even considered linking to this pseudo-science garbage,
Reply • 3 •
• January 27, 2012 at 2:08pm
o
Jenya Ys • Top Commenter • College of Idaho
David Brockett Saying that you proved something without any empirical evidence is null. Please describe the methods, tools, and guidelines within which you have discovered the results you claim. I look forward to reading your peer-reviewed study. Oh and also your study that proclaims social science as "no science at all", that could really revolutionize everyone's way of thinking, you know? So don't hold back!
Reply •
• February 9, 2012 at 5:49am
o
David Brockett • Top Commenter • Muenster, Texas
Jenya Ys Clearly you either didn't READ the comment or don't know the difference between stating an opinion and conducting a scientific study. Read it again, or get a friend to read it for you and then get back with me. Speaking of "peer-reviewed" studies...how is that Global Warming working out for you as "science"???
Reply • 1 •
• February 9, 2012 at 7:28am
o
Jenya Ys • Top Commenter • College of Idaho
David Brockett Way to go to try and insult my mental capacities rather than answer why you make claims that you make. You are comparing your personal observations and opinions to research as if you were an authority on the these issues. All I asked is for you to back your claims with evidence and instead you throw global warming at me?? Where did that come from? What makes you think I even care about global warming?
Reply • 1 •
• February 10, 2012 at 7:53am
View 1 more
•
robsheer (signed in using yahoo)
If you really want to do some interesting research. Study the link between children with low non-verbal IQ (low fluid intelligence) and its correlation to the strength of their religious beliefs. You will find time and time again that the lower the IQ the more "blind" their conservative religious "faith" as adults will be. In other words, people with the lowest non-verbal analytical IQs (average and below average, but not disabled) have some of the most fanatical, inflexible, and adamant religious beliefs. Churches are filled to the brim with these lower intelligence people. That's why they follow blindly, turn over control of their lives to complete strangers, and without questioning or doubting, they hand over their monies to their religious leaders. Even when faced with common sense prove regarding how they're being manipulated, their cognitive dissonance will keep them in denial, because people of low IQ cannot admit being wrong. Hence, they never learn, or learn slowly and they mature emotionally at a much slower pace than people with higher IQs. It is a fact. Research it.
Reply • 2 •
• January 27, 2012 at 1:42pm
•
Kimberley Hurst • Top Commenter
Anybody with any intelligence would laugh at this. One big joke!
Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 1:21pm
•
gaylegarden10 (signed in using yahoo)
I am a licensed social worker with a Master's degree. I was wondering where I can view the actual study. I tried looking on the Brock University website and did not find anything. The article does not give enough information to evaluate the study. Who were the participants? What were their ages, nationalities, occupations? Did they understand the nature of the study and did they volunteer for it? How many people were studied? Were they given I.Q. tests by qualified professionals? What was the methodology? Were the participants interviewed or did they do a survey? Who sponsored the study and who paid for it? Were the terms "conservative" "prejudiced" and "intelligence" defied in some way? How did they quantify (put in mathematical terms) the data they collected? Did they account for any factors that may have influenced the results in an unintentional way? Has the study been replicated? Is anyone planning on replicating it?
Reply • 7 •
• January 27, 2012 at 12:59pm
o
Liz Calhoun • University of San Francisco
"Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes" from Psychological Science, 01/05/2012.
doi: 10.1177/0956797611421206

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... ract?rss=1

Much more informative than an article written for the lay public!
Not sure if the study is available for public consumption yet; I have journal access through my grad program.
Reply • 2 •
• January 28, 2012 at 10:48am
•
Viir Exeter • Top Commenter • Artist at Self employed
Scientific proof that Conservatives are stupid—not that we needed scientific proof. All one has to do is observe Conservatives to clearly see that. I LOVE SCIENCE!
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 12:28pm
o
Viir Exeter • Top Commenter • Artist at Self employed
Thank you, MrEmory, for posting.
Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 12:28pm
•
David Mallory • Top Commenter • Marshall
Damn, I wish I was just half as smart as all you liberals. Thank God and Obama that you allow us conservative idiots to live in your country.
Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 11:01am
•
Ed McBeth • Top Commenter • Works at Author and Speaker. Business and creativity consultant • 150 subscribers
I would like to see this thesis extended to religion. It sure implies that low intelligence people would be attracted to the kinds of religion that are black and white in beliefs. Wait...that would be all of them I guess.
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 10:26am
•
Bruce Bacon • Top Commenter
After reading these comments, I have to say that the study is certainly confirmed here. Go to the Yahoo! version for a real eye-opener....mega-confirmation.
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 10:10am
•
David Brockett • Top Commenter • Muenster, Texas
So I guess the prejudice of left leaning minorities regarding whites didn't get studied yet it is rampant in our society...OH! that's RIGHT...minorities can't BE prejudiced...sorry...carry on!
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 10:03am
•
Christina Rockwood
Great and interesting article! Two thumbs up for sure! :-)

:-)

Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 9:33am
o
Heather Cauley Johnson • Bonneville High
Hahaha!! You're a little trouble maker, aren't you? That's AWESOME!!
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 10:58am
•
Davidian Rumph • Top Commenter
Why am I not surprised by this AT ALL? You can talk to these people til your blue in the face, giving them fact after fact after fact and they still will not or cannot understand why what your saying doesn't agree with their limited world view. I always joke about how slow these folks are, but it seems that perhaps my joking was based on fact afterall.
Reply • 3 •
• January 27, 2012 at 9:28am
o
Meg Bohrman • Yavapai College
Perhaps there is a way to speak to people that is beyond reason and intelligence. Perhaps your heart must do the speaking for such as these to listen... For it is essential that we find common ground.
Reply • 1 •
• February 1, 2012 at 7:16am
o
Davidian Rumph • Top Commenter
Meg Bohrman SO TRUE!!
Reply •
• February 1, 2012 at 7:18am
•
Forrest Crock • Top Commenter • Norfolk, Virginia
I am not sure if I have ever heard a very good definition of intelligence, but I am fairly sure the more intelligent a person is the more information they can process. A lot of racism deals with the inability to separate individuals into separate entities, so one tend to group large groups of people together. Obviously any negative piece of stimuli you receive about any "representatives" of that "population" you are going to apply to that whole "population", so I definitely can see where a lower IQ would lead to (generally) a more racist view. Of course there are plenty of intelligent people who are racist and plenty of people of subnormal IQ who pretty much love everyone.
Reply • 5 •
• January 27, 2012 at 9:23am
•
Igor Koshelev
A few years ago Michael Savage wrote a book titled Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. The lefties are striking back?
Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 8:37am
•
Locomotivebreath Nineteenohone • Top Commenter • Yup
"Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found."

A majority of Black folks hold to socially conservative ideologies and vote predominantly democrat.

Why does the author of this article, LiveScience Senior Writer Stephanie Pappas, hate Black people?

And why does LiveScience publish such repugnant bigotry?
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 8:05am
•
Aaron Young • Top Commenter
I would like to thank all the Liberals that were kind enough to participate in this comment section. The language and bigoted attacks from you prove how this article is nothing more than Liberal propaganda. I have been called a Self-Mutilator, fringe-dwelling, militia member, ditch digger, since I have a beard and wear a hoodie I'm a Uni-bomber, I am Mohawk N.A. and this is how our liberal friends feel about that "A lot of things are part of one's ancestry, that doesn't make them positive." this is in regards to my piercings. This is a quote from the main liberal bigot. "One thing the study fails to take into account is fear. Conservatives and bigots tend to share an incredible amount of general fearfulness, whether it be of the "other" or of being lumped in with those they consider "inferior." That is an enormous motivator against any form of change." I guess I forgot that double standards are business as usual for the Liberal nut jobs. Christopher Nadeau do YOU see the irony?
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 7:59am
o
Pseudonymous Smith • Top Commenter • Works at Haha, none of your business, ya stalkers (:
You forgot "Asshole"
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:14am
•
D.j. Allyn • Top Commenter • UC Berkeley
This explains a LOT...
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 7:39am
•
Greg Schmidt • Works at Auburn University
I'd like to see the citation for the Hodson and Busseri article. Until I see the peer-review process their study has gone through, I'll have to take it with a large grain of salt.
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 6:05am
o
Greg Schmidt • Works at Auburn University
Found the citation. This is legitimate research. "Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower
Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low
Intergroup Contact" Psychological Science, vol.20 no.10 (January 5, 2012)
Reply • 2 •
• January 27, 2012 at 6:10am
•
Anneliese Harper • Scottsdale Community College
This will be used against liberals....
Reply • 2 •
• January 27, 2012 at 5:35am
•
Jason Boissonneault • Works at The Makery
In a Darwinian sense, this could be either a cause for alarm or a source of comfort -- depending on your perspective on the timeline of social progress. Most of the revolutions birthed during the Enlightenment evolved into a Conservative-dominated minority, while progressive trends tend to be absorbed into society and accepted within the established Conservative framework -- as though they always existed (rock music, drug use and sexual behaviors of the 60's). For instance, it is often conveniently forgotten that opposition to slavery, segregation, or women's suffrage was once the deeply unpopular road. If your glass is half-empty, it might appear that intelligence doesn't result in a survivability advantage -- at least in a political or military sense. But with a telescopic view of history's timeline, violence is down, individual freedom and living conditions have increased. It could be that the dialectic of progress vs. tradition are inherently an evolutionary dance -- where we are players unaware of our role in a struggle which provides a framework of eventual progress at a pace which prevents our extinction.
Reply • 7 •
• January 27, 2012 at 5:07am
o
Christian James Meredith • Top Commenter • Adelaide, South Australia
You get the award for the most interesting comment here

Reply • 2 •
• January 28, 2012 at 8:21pm
o
Pseudonymous Smith • Top Commenter • Works at Haha, none of your business, ya stalkers (:
Here here!
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:13am
o
Matthew Suber • Sapient Corporation
Agreed. In short, progress and change is inevitable in a world and universe where everything changes and conservatives to play a part on maintaining certain traditions as human culture evolves through time.
Reply • 1 •
• February 8, 2012 at 1:53pm
View 1 more
•
Right Klik • Top Commenter
You say bigots are inherently inferior? *IRONY ALERT*
Reply • 3 •
• January 27, 2012 at 4:11am
•
Donald R May • University of Illinois at Chicago
I will stick with Ronald Reagan’s words of comfort and understanding,

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's.
just that they know so much that isn't so."
Reply • 2 •
• January 27, 2012 at 12:50am
•
Janet Rae-Dupree • Sole Proprietor at Unboxed Media
Hoo boy. Social/political dynamite - but such FUN!
Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 12:40am
•
Jennifer Paggeot Fisher • Top Commenter • Tucson, Arizona
The "fear" factor is directly translatable to conservatives' desire to keep the status quo. "Don't move, don't touch anything, don't change." Liberals tend to embrace change as an adventure - and often required to correct societal wrongs - or even willingly, as an experiment. "Well, that didn't work, let's try something else." Conservatives want a return to what they label "basic family values" when what they really mean is "I want the world to be safe and familiar like it was when I was a little kid." (Read: That brief semi-quiet period in the American 1950's post-war era.)
Reply • 4 •
• January 26, 2012 at 10:11pm
o
Mike McKeown • Enterprise High
Well, if nothing else Jennifer, you've managed to regurgitate a liberal stereotype of "conservative." Dig a little deeper.

The whole "fear response" assignment to conservatism has passed into web-knowledge for liberals. Accepted as fact. I wonder...when affirmative action is challenged at a college is it conservatives clamoring to preserve the status quo(ta) or liberals? No matter. In fact, the entire "fear response" accusation comes into liberal lore by way of other "studies" designed to produce that result. If you want references, you need look no further than Dodson's academic citations. Follow the references.

That's right. Dodson doesn't exist in an academic vacuum. He has, and quotes, like-minded "scientists." Such citations ordinarily are meant to impart confirmational authority, but in this case are merely a circular cl...See More
Reply • 3 •
• January 27, 2012 at 2:18am
o
Jennifer Paggeot Fisher • Top Commenter • Tucson, Arizona
Mike McKeown Funny you should make this point because I've often found that conservatives tend to stereotype all liberals as waiting for hand-outs, pierced, pot-smoking and lacking in ambition. I freely chastise them to learn who their adversaries are in order to better oppose them - we can't counter a point, an issue, unless we *know* who the opponent is fundamentally, right? With that in mind, I'll take a dose of my own medicine and consider the possibility that my frequent interactions with conservatives has left me with a skewed view.
Reply • 4 •
• January 27, 2012 at 9:17am
o
Mike McKeown • Enterprise High
Jennifer Paggeot Fisher: I live in the SF Bay Area so, similarly, I get a fair dose of liberalism every day. I'm sure both sides have their lockstep boneheads. While labels like "conservative" and "liberal" are pretty nebulous, they do, each, stand for a general set of beliefs. And I don't wholly disagree with your summary. But when push-button, negative personality traits are assigned ad populum with the apparent authority of "science", I'm inclined to read the research. And what I find time and again is a driven, circular, incestuous clique citing one another, using tilted "metrics" and, inevitably, constraining the approach so that their "target" is hit, the label assigned and the headline won.

I haven't read Dodson's latest. But his 2007 paper is nothing short of reprehensible if science it is intended to be. Alas. Now back to "Leave it to Beaver."

Reply • 2 •
• January 27, 2012 at 3:45pm
View 1 more
•
Cory Hudson • Works at Penske Logistics
Misleading headline puts the writers politics ahead of the true facts as played out in the article. I hope most people who see it take the time to read and decide for themselves. Nice job trying to label conservatives as racists! Anyone who's ever studies statistics will see right through invalid logic.
Reply • 1 •
• January 26, 2012 at 10:08pm
o
Sam Raisbeck • Top Commenter
oh no... the facts are there for you to discover...

or are you telling us that you have a hard time reading? it's okay i know a very nice adult learning center that makes no judgements....

and frankly fool...

there aren't any statistics provided in this article... ...

but i'm sure you know that because you were able to struggle your way through the article...
Reply •
• January 27, 2012 at 7:12am
o
Cory Hudson • Works at Penske Logistics
Sam, I think you should enroll in that adult ed class and see what you can learn. I didn't say there were statistics provided in this article, I said that anyone who has studied them can see the fallicy in the logic supporting the headline of the article. Instead of laying out any logical argument, you choose to call me names and try to degrade me! Wow! I consider myself an INDEPENDENT thinker and voter. I don't like headlines that imply racism when the facts provided don't support that. The other troubling aspect of this story is the outdated nature of the studies. The world and our cultures in both the US and UK have changed tremendously in the last 50 years through the Civil Rights Movement and after. So help yourself to some critical thinking and some education, then open your mouth. Some people are thought a fool and others open their mouths and prove it. Thanks for being the latter!
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 5:00pm
o
Pseudonymous Smith • Top Commenter • Works at Haha, none of your business, ya stalkers (:
Sam Raisbeck TROLLOLOL
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:18am
View 3 more
•
Robert Johns • Top Commenter • Works at England
That's almost predujicial view in itself, I know plenty of lower IQ people who are not racist in the least, and IQ is NOT a measure of actual intelligence, or emotional intelligence at all, IQ is a measure which is more related to one's ability to function in a technological age, to think or assume that IQ is a true measure of an individual's intelligence is not only blinkered but downright dangerous so to draw links like this is pretty much statistical psuedo-science.
Reply •
• January 26, 2012 at 9:41pm
•
Tommy Roundhouse
People forget.. correlation doesn't mean causation..
Reply • 5 •
• January 26, 2012 at 9:08pm
o
Sam Raisbeck • Top Commenter
you are correct correlation does not prove causality... but then when an idiot speaks he often parrots what intelligent people have been saying for years...
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 7:00am
o
Pseudonymous Smith • Top Commenter • Works at Haha, none of your business, ya stalkers (:
Sam Raisbeck coming from the lips of an obsequious sycophant like Sam, I find this amusing.
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:07am
o
Sam Raisbeck • Top Commenter
Stephen Pseudonymous Smith wow... stalker much?
Reply •
• January 30, 2012 at 12:31pm
•
Mike McKeown • Enterprise High
Hodson is a crackpot who has been at this sort race-baiting for years. He is, by his own admission both agenda-driven and policy-oriented. His "research" is configured to produce the "results" he wants and which invariably connect "conservative" and "right wing" and "white" to a battery of methodologically inevitable negative categories (themselves carefully constructed from other dubious benchmarks) like "biased", "racists", "homophobic", "less intelligent", etc.

In a another of his "studies" published in 2007, he set out to demonstrate that 'interpersonal disgust' is connected to RWA (right wing authoritarianism) and SDO (social dominance orientation). Lol. Needless to say, both of these metrics are provided by his equally qualified colleagues. RWA is misleading in its very name since it can also apply, for example, to entren...See More
Reply • 5 •
• January 26, 2012 at 6:24pm
o
Sam Raisbeck • Top Commenter
sorry race baiting? i thought the study addressed conservative beliefs as they are passed on by heredity... and then converted into some sort of justification for racial hatred... keep them damned mexicans out of my country (arizona much?)... basically you feel that you have been wronged, and if it were scientifically provable that you were not wrong you would have stated that... instead you resorted to... "well he's a liar"
Reply • 1 •
• January 27, 2012 at 7:06am
o
Mike McKeown • Enterprise High
Which study? You need to be more specific. Dodson a liar? Let me think...yes. Either a liar or massively ignorant of scientific method. The 2007 paper is an utter travesty. I expect Dodson has not improved in four years.
Reply • 2 •
• January 27, 2012 at 3:52pm
o
Sam Raisbeck • Top Commenter
Mike McKeown
wow...
you sure showed me...
statistcal models are only valid when they evaluate the entire population... that is what you said right?
why bother with statistics and probability at all if we can only make inference based on a model that measures every member of the population rather than a sample?
you would make a great actuary...
your indignation that the model was based on 3000 individuals tested over five decades who were not from your country totally shows that you are not intolerant, xenophobic, or racist...
america fuck yeah!
Reply • 1 •
• January 31, 2012 at 8:14am
View 1 more
•
Rosanne Smithe • Top Commenter
We get it. The current narrative is that "conservatives" (republicans) are dumb. Not only that, because they're so dumb, then they're racists too. Just ask Newsweek! Fact is some very famous racists have been very intelligent, and some intelligent "liberals" (Democrats) have been KKK members.
Reply •
• January 26, 2012 at 5:41pm
o
Pseudonymous Smith • Top Commenter • Works at Haha, none of your business, ya stalkers (:
There was a time when "Democrats" were not always labelled "Liberals". See George Wallace for further study, numbnuts.
Reply • 1 •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:22am
o
Sam Raisbeck • Top Commenter
Stephen Pseudonymous Smith there was also a time when people who thought they had a point to make signed thier john hancock to it... you?
Reply •
• January 31, 2012 at 9:44am
•
Anthony James Brooks • Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Now THIS is an headline that grabs the attention!!!
Reply •
• January 26, 2012 at 5:36pm
o
Anthony James Brooks • Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Don't shoot the messenger...

\runs
Reply • 1 •
• January 26, 2012 at 5:38pm
•
Gwen Reed
without prejudice and dehumanization of the enemy... how can war be waged?
Reply • 2 •
• January 26, 2012 at 5:24pm
•
me (signed in using yahoo)
The real story hear is a "Senior Writer" posts a very elementary article full of prejudiced viewpoints and stereotypes that are only supported by a study that is designed to get the result they want.
Reply • 1 •
• January 26, 2012 at 4:39pm
o
Pseudonymous Smith • Top Commenter • Works at Haha, none of your business, ya stalkers (:
here*
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 8:19am
o
Sam Raisbeck • Top Commenter
Stephen Pseudonymous Smith sorry couldn't hear you over the sound of you patting yourself on the back for winning a spelling bee in fifth grade...
Reply •
• January 31, 2012 at 9:37am
•
Bill Adams • Lab Technician at GE Intelligent Platforms
The article makes this little deeper inference I'll go with.

"In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general."

I think that conservative and liberal stupidities are very different in that one stems from a monolithic top down sense of order, and the other stems from no sense of order whatsoever.
Reply • 1 •
• January 26, 2012 at 4:33pm
o
Geri Hudson • Top Commenter • Estate Sale fun at Four Sales Ltd
Ah yes, stupid = conservative. I tried to read this, honest I did, but it starts out so incredibly insulting to anyone who's not of a liberal mindset that I couldn't get past the automatic "racist=conservative" bull that's trying to pass itself off as science. Liberalism stems from "no sense of order whatsoever?" Why, then, are liberals the ones crying for more government "ordering" of more of our lives? I know I'm going to regret this, because I've been trying to be good, but there is a line...
Reply •
• January 28, 2012 at 6:55pm
o
Bill Adams • Lab Technician at GE Intelligent Platforms
Geri Hudson I did not say, "Liberalism stems from "no sense of order whatsoever?"". You admit to not having read the article through, you apparently skipped over what I quoted from it, and you quoted me out of context. Is this your case for conservative smarts? The article implicates extremism, and like good science in general the results of the study don't confirm the perceived ideological bias of the group doing the study.
Reply • 2 •
• January 28, 2012 at 7:55pm
o
Geri Hudson • Top Commenter • Estate Sale fun at Four Sales Ltd
When are people going to realize that the best way to stop racism is to stop pointing fingers and making everyone focus on our differences? Just stop it! Is there racism? Of course. Is it as rampant as these studies and the media would have us believe? Absolutely not! Someone please define racism for me, please, because it no longer seems to mean what it once did. Seems to me that perfectly "intelligent" people are making pretty stupid assumptions about what is driving people to believe and vote as they do, blaming everything on "racism" because it's such a horrible, hurtful thing that has become so all-encompassing that it's nearly impossible to defend yourself when accused. This would not have struck such a nerve with me if conservatives weren't under such constant attack for being racists based solely on the fact that they're conservatives. I don't see nearly as much racism as I do the assumption that liberal = smarter than conservative. Why is one assumption of this type so (rightfully) bad, while the other form of smug superiority so widely accepted and willingly embraced by otherwise intelligent folks?
Reply • 1 •
• January 28, 2012 at 10:24pm
View 7 more
•
Randy Danger Clark
No surprise here.
Reply • 3 •
• January 26, 2012 at 3:47pm
•
Trevor Erik • Top Commenter • Civil Designer at Golder Associates
Great to see that so many opposed to the article have actually read the whole thing… *sarcasm. Most of their arguments against it are answered in it. Sort of reaffirms what the research says.
Reply • 21 •
• January 26, 2012 at 3:27pm
o
John Wheeler • Top Commenter • Phoenix, Arizona
Glad to see your liberal narcissism is in tact.
Reply • 13 •
• January 28, 2012 at 5:01am
o
Gen Mal • Top Commenter • Many at Wouldn't you like to know
John Wheeler
"Glad to see your liberal narcissism is in tact."
Is that "in tact" as in using "tactfulness" or "intact" as in "not broken"
It's funny b/c the word "intact" wasn't intact.
Reply • 39 •
• January 28, 2012 at 5:26pm
o
Joseph Ryan Socarras • Top Commenter • Atomic Force Microscopy Lab Undergraduate Researcher at University of Miami
I read the whole thing and still don't agree with it. My post is at the top. I'm not an advocate for any specific party, but I am an advocate against ad hominems, which I feel is clear this article perpetrates. They do nothing to add to discussion.
Reply • 9 •
• January 28, 2012 at 8:19pm
View 6 more
•
Donald E. Thomas • Top Commenter • Substitute Teacher at Mt. Diablo USD
So, Sheila Jackson-Lee, a liberal black woman who is grossly ignorant about the space program as well as the political situation in Vietnam, is nonetheless highly intelligent?
Reply •
• January 26, 2012 at 3:23pm
o
Louise H Mowder • Top Commenter • President at Self employed
So intelligence consists of knowing about the space program and Vietnam? There are all manner of intelligent people - Nobel prize winners, for instance - who are specialists in their field and yet know nothing about other subjects. Even YOU may have subjects about which you know nothing - say, Scholastic philosophy and the payrates of farm subsidies and the number of industrialized nations with universal health care.
What you DO know is that you do not like Sheila Jackson-Lee. But one person out of approximately 39 million can not be considered representative of the entire group. Your comment has no bearing on the issue.
Reply • 2 •
• January 29, 2012 at 11:39am
o
Donald E. Thomas • Top Commenter • Substitute Teacher at Mt. Diablo USD
Louise H Mowder Given that she is a public figure, elected to public office, (supposedly) highly educated, etc., and not just a random person off the street, her ignorance about some basic science and history--knowledge (or lack thereof) which may affect her votes both in committee and on the House floor, I might add--is not something that can be dismissed nearly as easily as you think. Scholastic philosophy, on the other hand, is something that I'm not ever likely to have to deal with, and certainly not in a political capacity. Information about farm subsidies or nations with universal health care is also not common knowledge, but if I should need it, I could find it out in a few minutes--and I certainly would if I were ever expected to voice an opinion.
Reply •
• January 29, 2012 at 1:01pm
o
Louise H Mowder • Top Commenter • President at Self employed
Donald E. Thomas My point is that Ms. Jackson-Lee doesn't need to know about the current political situation in Vietnam in order to be *intelligent*. You stated that the fact that she couldn't be "highly intelligent" if she didn't know about such things. Of course, she should be aware of these issues to the extent they affect her constituency - but that is because of her elected status, not because she needs to know these things to be "intelligent."

Being intelligent is certainly not the same thing as being well-informed.Presumably Ms Jackson-Lee can use Google as well as you can, if she needs to find out info.

However, there is still no reason to point to Ms Jackson-Lee as representative of 39 million American blacks. What bearing does her lack of awareness of the space program have on the discussion of whether low I.Q. is linked to prejudice and Conservative beliefs?

PS: every industrialized country in the world has universal health care - save one. I bet you can guess which one that is. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... e=1&ref=nf
Reply • 2 •
• January 30, 2012 at 4:01pm
View 3 more
•
Art Ramos • Top Commenter • Senior Systems Analyst at SUNY Orange
The liberals thinking that any group is too stupid to help themselves, that any group cannot hold individual independent viewpoints, that they can and should berate the individual who holds an opposing viewpoint, that they cannot get an education or a job without a government program, and that the group should blindly vote en masse for the liberal politicians is apparently not racist in their view.
Reply •
• January 26, 2012 at 3:09pm
o
Pseudonymous Smith • Top Commenter • Works at Haha, none of your business, ya stalkers (:
Thanks for validating the study.
Reply • 2 •
• February 2, 2012 at 3:10pm
•
Steve Smith
I love it when liberals champion IQ tests when it comes to shit like this, but completely ignore IQ when it shows an obvious disparity between Whites and Blacks. Talk about confirmation bias.
Reply • 3 •
• January 26, 2012 at 2:38pm
o
Traci Kelly • Top Commenter
When you say IQ tests, are you referring to eugenics or school test scores? Because with the latter it has been shown that the disparity comes from a lack of equal access to resources, not based simply on Blacks vs. Whites. If you are referring to eugenics, well then, you've made the case for the authors of this article.
Reply • 9 •
• January 26, 2012 at 3:35pm
o
Steve Smith
Traci Kelly, I'm referring to GENETICS, not EUGENICS. It has nothing to do with resources or culture, as Asians score even higher than Whites on IQ tests that are designed by Whites. So your argument is baseless. Keep making excuses for the inherent inequality between the races though, it's cute.
Reply • 4 •
• January 26, 2012 at 3:51pm
o
Traci Kelly • Top Commenter
Steve Smith "Inherent inequality?" Yes, I guess it does matter if you are left with an inheritance or not.
Reply • 9 •
• January 26, 2012 at 3:53pm
View 9 more
•
Pseudonymous Smith • Top Commenter • Works at Haha, none of your business, ya stalkers (:
Funniest comments here are those stating that "many blacks are racist". Thereby validating their own racism, since the article never made a distinction between white racists or black racists. Priceless.
Reply • 59 •
• January 26, 2012 at 2:37pm
o
Sam Raisbeck • Top Commenter
and silly me i thought the funniest comments here were made by people who think they are intelligent and want the rest of us to grant them that... mostly because they really good spelling and grammar....
Reply • 5 •
• January 27, 2012 at 12:26pm
o
Sam Raisbeck • Top Commenter
sorry there geoof... but i don't see where i said i had a problem with intellectuals... being able to understand what has been communicated is also a sign of intellect... what i said was, you're not as bright as you think you are ... and seeing that had to be explained to you means i'm correct....
Reply • 8 •
• January 27, 2012 at 4:32pm
o
Pseudonymous Smith • Top Commenter • Works at Haha, none of your business, ya stalkers (:
Sam Raisbeck "mostly because they (sic) really good spelling and grammar...."

PRICELESS
Reply • 4 •
• January 27, 2012 at 6:36pm
View 63 more
•
Cameron Richards • Amherst, Massachusetts
Universal healthcare will help to keep everyone including these dumb people alive so, I guess the smart liberals will just have to deal with them?
Reply •
• January 26, 2012 at 2:37pm
View 25 more
Facebook social plugin

admin_pornrev: Site Admin; Posts: 832; Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:35 pm

3 posts • Page 1 of 1

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests