• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Right-wingers are less intelligent than left-wingers: Study

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Inactive
Reaction score
25
Points
430
We have had one or two recent 'visitors' who are claiming to be highly educated, yet incapable of constructing a logical argument, mostly due to the lack of ability in using correct English writting skills.  Ones who claim to earn their education money through working for the large corporations they also vehemently oppose in the form of protests and the Protest Movement.

Article found February 10, 2012

Right-wingers are less intelligent than left-wingers: Study
LINK

by Sympatico.ca News

Controversial Brock University study looks at political views and intelligence


Do you tend to vote for right-wing parties in elections? If the answer is yes, you should probably look away now.

A Canadian study out of Brock University, Ontario, is receiving a lot of international attention for saying that right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and that people with low childhood intelligence grow up to be racist and hold anti-gay views.

The authors of the study published in Psychological Science claim that people with low intelligence tend to gravitate towards ring-wing views because they make them feel safe. In fact the academics also suggest that conservative politics serve as a ‘gateway’ into prejudice against others.

The research analyzed more than 15,000 people from two studies conducted in 1958 and 1970. Children were assessed for intelligence at the age of 10 and 11, and then the same group was asked political questions when they turned 33 to form a correlation between smartness and political views. In adulthood these people were asked whether they agreed with statements such as “I wouldn’t mind working with people from other races,” or “I wouldn’t mind if a family of different race moved next door.”

Apparently social status plays no part in this study and neither does education. The findings say that only innate intelligence is a factor into conservatism.

As expected, this study is causing quite a stir both at home and internationally.

How do you feel about this study and its findings?


More comments on LINK


=========================================================================================================



Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study


LINK
Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
Analysis of more than 15,000 people


By Rob Waugh

Last updated at 9:54 AM on 8th February 2012


Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.
Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.

Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics.

Social status also appears to play no part.

The study, published in Psychological Science, claims that right-wing ideology forms a 'pathway' for people with low reasoning ability to become prejudiced against groups such as other races and gay people.

'Cognitive abilities are critical in forming impressions of other people and in being open minded,' say the researchers.

'Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo.

'It provides a sense of order.'
The study, by academics at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, used information from two UK studies from 1958 and 1970 , where several thousand children were assessed for intelligence at age 10 and 11, and then asked political questions aged 33.
The 1958 National Child Development involved 4,267 men and 4,537 women born in 1958.

The British Cohort Study involved 3,412 men and 3,658 women born in 1970.
It's the first time the data from these studies has been used in this way.

In adulthood, the children were asked whether they agreed with statements such as, 'I wouldn't mind working with people from other races,' and 'I wouldn't mind if a family of a different race moved next door.'
They were also asked whether they agreed with statements about typically right-wing and socially conservative politics such as, 'Give law breakers stiffer sentences,' and 'Schools should teach children to obey authority.'
The researchers also compared their results against a 1986 American study which included tests of cognitive ability and questions assessing prejudice against homosexuals.

The authors claim that there is a strong correlation between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.

The authors also claim that conservative politics is part of a complex relationship that leads people to become prejudices.

'Conservative ideology represents a critical pathway through which childhood intelligence predicts racism in adulthood,' says the paper. 
'In psychological terms, the relation between intelligence and prejudice may stem from the propensity of individuals with lower cognitive ability to endorse more right wing conservative ideologies because such ideologies offer a psychological sense of stability and order.'

'Clearly, however, all socially conservative people are not prejudiced, and all prejudiced persons are not conservative.'

More comments on LINK

This may be a prime example of Statistics being skewed to meet the desires of the 'group' conducting it. 
 
Hmmm.  And here I thought that I was a left-winger because my stick goes on that side and lets me pass and shoot better.  Hoo noo itz cuz ise smartur?
 
CBC and The Huffington Post tripping over each other to cover the story in 3....2....1....
 
I have a really hard time keeping my supper down when I see nonsense like this.

First let me say I am politically left of center but I also know that I have been debated to a tie by some right of center individuals. But these are exceptional people who have been able to produce verifiable facts that have caused me to sit back and re examine my own views.

The thing I find suspect with this study is they haven't said what they defined as native intelligence,

The British Cohort study said they based it on tests of cognitive ability, but the article does not state what these tests were or how they were scored.

The 1958 study said nothing about about what they used to define intelligence, but from the date, the only tests I could think of, would be IQ tests, and if you've read a bit you can score high on IQ tests, since they are mostly based on general knowledge. This to my mind is not a mark of native intelligence but simply being like a magpie and collecting shiny trinkets of lnowledge.

I am, like many others, predisposed to believe things that make me look good but for gosh sakes give me some verifiable facts instead of just trying to overwhelm me with a load of pablum. My cats, who are singularily brilliant for cats, can put up a better argument than this.
 
Left wing and right wing is just part of the debate process.  Both have to be equally intelligent to have a debate.  Part of the problem lies with what most of us know as "ugly baby syndrome", whereas your opinion is right (your baby is beautiful) and you are unwilling to change (seeing your baby as ugly).

The true answer to anything is likely a lot closer to the middle than either side will ever admit.
 
I don't know.  I've been following the republican primaries.  The guys who conducted the study may be on to something... ;)
 
In my opinion, any extreme beliefs on either side may be indicative of less than ideal intelligence. I personally subscribe to the left - right paradigm theory. It seems to be playing out quite nicely nowadays.

Also for every study conducted by a university, or an individual, opposite results from another study are just a matter of time.
Examples:

Milk is good for, milk is bad for you
Cell phones safe, Cell phones cause cancer
Global warming happening, Global warming not happening
and so on and so on.
 
sappermcfly said:
In my opinion, any extreme beliefs on either side may be indicative of less than ideal intelligence.

I agree to an extent, although I don't believe it's a lack of intelligence; it is a refusal and inability to listen.  Both sides have good ideas; it is a matter of the leadership swallowing their pride and sorting out which ideas are truly the best.
 
This is a ridiculous topic.  To pigeon-hole all people into one of 2 ill-defined groups is foolish enough.  To declare one of these imaginary groups to be more intelligent than the other without quantifying exactly what they mean by intelligence is even more foolish.

Are Asians smarter than Caucasians?
Are red heads smarter than blondes?
Are tall people smarter than short people?

Each of these arguments, as dumb as they are, would be more reasonable than left-wing vs right-wing since at least the basic definition of who you are studying can be made just a bit more concrete.

Gawd... I get SO tired of what passes for news these days.  ::)

 
It's coming from the UK, the greatest nanny state on Earth so it is not very credible.
 
This was on Sympatico a week or so ago. Sympatico has a bad habit of regurgitating news and (stupid) opinion pieces days/weeks later.

Along this line Redeye previously posted similar disinformation, also added that those watching FOX News were similarly disadvantaged.

We all understand that Redeye watches Fox News in his closet.
 
fraserdw said:
It's coming from the UK, the greatest nanny state on Earth so it is not very credible.

Not only does this statement display an excellent example of a logical fallacy known as "non sequitur", the study is a Canadian one. Not the first to come to this conclusion, but the methodology of the studies is ... well ... I don't put a lot of stock in them. However, numerous studies suggest that people who lean right are more consistently misinformed, and the right wing propaganda machine probably bears some responsibility for that - it's fairly well documented.
 
exabedtech said:
This is a ridiculous topic.

A ridiculous article?  I agree. 

A ridiculous topic?  I disagree.

Many people are set in their beliefs.  Most people have strong beliefs, but I hope they have the fortitude to change when necessary.
 
Redeye said:
Not only does this statement display an excellent example of a logical fallacy known as "non sequitur", the study is a Canadian one. Not the first to come to this conclusion, but the methodology of the studies is ... well ... I don't put a lot of stock in them. However, numerous studies suggest that people who lean right are more consistently misinformed, and the right wing propaganda machine probably bears some responsibility for that - it's fairly well documented.

Is that the sound of a broken record i hear ?

::)
 
CDN Aviator said:
Is that the sound of a broken record i hear ?

::)

Well, as soon as you refute the statement, maybe I'll stop reminding people of it. Good luck with that.
 
exabedtech said:
This is a ridiculous topic.  To pigeon-hole all people into one of 2 ill-defined groups is foolish enough.  To declare one of these imaginary groups to be more intelligent than the other without quantifying exactly what they mean by intelligence is even more foolish.

Are Asians smarter than Caucasians?
Are red heads smarter than blondes?
Are tall people smarter than short people?

Each of these arguments, as dumb as they are, would be more reasonable than left-wing vs right-wing since at least the basic definition of who you are studying can be made just a bit more concrete.

Gawd... I get SO tired of what passes for news these days.  ::)

I couldn't agree more. I can't even understand why intelligent people are debating the merits and faults, here and elsewhere.

The study achieved it's goal. That was, not to inform or enlighten, but to cause dissention and derision. It seems to have worked, judging by the activity being held here.

When I first saw the article, I was going to accuse George of trolling ( ;) ). Perhaps I wasn't that far off. ::)
 
recceguy said:
When I first saw the article, I was going to accuse George of trolling ( ;) ). Perhaps I wasn't that far off. ::)

This RADIO CHATTER......no other place for a topic like this one.......other than the dumpster........

It is a Lefty Feel Good Study, conducted by a Lefties for Lefties.    ;D
 
Back
Top