Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias & Politics | Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology | LiveScience

Ire, you should really do some research into statistical inference, you'll notice many holes in the writeup to this study.

The field of Social Sciences is rife with studies that are later refuted by other tests. It is a very immature field that is littered with biased inferences into both interpretation and collection. It is heavily known as a fit the data to your conclusion field. And I say this having taken many, many years of statistical study.

Here are examples:

http://cafehayek.com/2010/08/whats-wrong-with-research-in-the-social-sciences.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Another long article explaining the pitfalls of studies like this:

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_social-science.html

"....you should really do some research into statistical inference, you'll notice many holes in the writeup to this study."

Yes but this study and my years of personal observation certainly jibe. I haven't met a conservative in years who can make a coherant argument and that is nothing less than sad. I remember the days of W.F. Buckley when intellectualism was something the GOP cherished. Now it is an evil word.

Today it is just their way or the highway and they don't even attempt to justify their way. We know trickle down economics and the Laffer Curve have been proven failures yet candidates on the Right continue to run on these failed policies. We know if you kill revenue streams debt will occur. Doesn't stop them for a second.

Is there comfort in ignorance? You would have to go there to find out!

I haven't met a conservative in years who can make a coherant argument and that is nothing less than sad.

I find it sad that while mocking conservatives, you misspelled "coherent".

f u w l:

I find it sad that while mocking conservatives, you misspelled "coherent".

I find it weak that you attack the spelling and not the statement.

Well, when you're accusing a large portion of the population of not being able to put forth a coherent argument, implying that they're less than intelligent (as this seed purports), it helps to not come off as less than intelligent yourself.

Jesse,

You mentioned " Social Conservatives believe public schools are brain washing kids?" and YES, that's true. The brainwashing is asserted since conservatives believe that authority is the source of knowledge -- but public schools currently assert that empiricism functions as a more accurate source of knowledge. Think of it as Jesus said it VS the current evidence shows this.

Then you mention this "belief that various races have to be taken care of more (Affirmative Action that is not based on socio-economic levels)"

That shows a glaring ignorance regarding your understanding of affirmative-action. Our society has had a history of institutional racism. And our society still practices racism in all the institutions where affirmative-action currently plays a role. Affirmative action tries to merely level the playing-field. It's not trying to help certain minorities because they are less able. It's trying to help address the results of continuing applications of bigotry.

Did the researchers show the methodology or publish the raw data (make it accessible)? If you can challenge that, then you can show bias. Asserting bias, out of hand, is irrelevant.

conservatives believe that authority is the source of knowledge...

Possibly some conservatives believe that. I would say probably most evangelicals, if not all, believe that. Political conservatism is simply the degree to which one prefers for government to be involved in society. Religious ideology is something else entirely, and I will readily admit that it's well represented in the current GOP and Tea Party, but not necessarily in true conservatism. Today's American social conservatism as advocated by the GOP and TP is really quite different from this country's historical experience with true political conservatism and classical liberalism.

Jesse: Nice try, however, when you have a group of people who need to define 'intelligence' to suit their worldview, you have a rather bigoted and biased audience. I would also add insecure but then, that would be redundant. Seems the entire argument has a rather 'high school' or juvenile tenor. Amusing how people will paint an entire population with the broad brush of discriminatory rhetoric. Note that this article is, in essence, prejudice and bigotry. Of course, since it is about liberals, no notice will be made when they behave in a bigoted and prejudiced manner. Self-created blindness does that.

Note that this article is, in essence, prejudice and bigotry.

the article documents the results of a study. What was pre-judged? What about the article refuses to change its position in the face of scientific fact?

the article reports that a study found commonalities between people of lower intelligence, who are prejudiced, and who are socially conservative. It says that on average, these things tend to go together. That's it.

that it reflects poorly on conservatives is just...fun.

Actually, biased 'studies' abound and are essentially meaningless except as they serve to further political agendas. One can skew anything to create propaganda. Hope and Change? Then again, how many studies have been made concerning bias and prejudice and self-serving self-congratulation within the 'liberal' community. One could assume that those conducting said 'studies' might have an agenda or two, or should we even consider the possibilty of a hidden agenda or two in such 'studies?'

or should we even consider the possibilty of a hidden agenda or two in such 'studies?'

yes, we should consider the possibility. More importantly, we should consider the extent to which the researcher considered the possibility first. After the fact, that's one of the things peer review is for.

please consider it, but actually consider it, not just the fact that you don't like it, or the fact that sometime in the past some studies have had methodological flaws or the researcher have drawn wild conclusions...somewhere...or so I've heard...or something.

this sort of accusation calls for specific critique. Blind swinging accusation will not do.

Actually, biased 'studies' abound and are essentially meaningless except as they serve to further political agendas.

I'd love to see the list, meanwhile, you don't get to call "prejudice" and then display that your prejudice against the study is what leads you to believe the study itself is prejudiced.

Then again, how many studies have been made concerning bias and prejudice and self-serving self-congratulation within the 'liberal' community.

dunno, how many? I serously doubt you're able to actually answer your own question.

again, you don't just get to say "there has been a bunch and therefore this is one of them" without proof.

..you know, since you're so against prejudice and so against flawed research and require actual proof of things and such.

care to live up to your own expectations of others?

if there is a flaw in the methodology of this research, if the questions were biased, if the researchers didn't validate their instruments or something...please show that.

If public schools were brainwashing children with republican ideas, republicans would be praising those schools.

Ahh, lets see here. There was concern about the standardized IQ tests, seems they rated intelligence using models that were the norm for average middle class white families. Questions like: You put the cup on the: A. saucer B. table c. floor were judged inaccurate if the respondent used anything but answer A.

So, the creators of the test were using their own personal biases based on upbringing and cultural biases to create a series of tests that were supposed to register intelligence, according to the test creators.

I doubt you would acknowledge a prejudicial bias for something which you agree with, however, there have been many questions raised about efficacies of studies and tests, especially studies on such subjective materials.

www.wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceCulturalBias.html

There was concern about the standardized IQ tests, seems they rated intelligence using models that were the norm for average middle class white families.

How do you know this? Do you have a link to the methodology of the study? If so please link it.

Umm, if you read the post #3.8 you will discover, down at the bottom, a link to an article. Click on the link and you will get said article. You will know the link because it has www. in front of it and it is also underlined. Also, there is a thing know as a search engine, type in 'cultural bias in IQ testing' in the topic bar and series of pages will come up and on the first page you will find many, many listing of articles on that subject.

@mygirl that means you READ Hodson's study to find out that they used "average middle class white family" IQ test?

Please quote the methodolgy as several of us do not have the access you seem to have.

Did you click on the link? Apparently not. It's not difficult. Place the cursor over the link and hit the mouse button. The link will open up. When you do so you will read about the 'Chitlin Test of Intelligence' and the "Redden-Simons 'Rap' Test. Note that the creator of the 'chitlin' test was a black sociologist by the name of Dove.

You aren't getting it. So I will break it down for you. Do you have a link for HODSON'S study to know what type of IQ test that they used? Do you know the RACIAL break down of the study? Do you know the CLASS break down of this study?

YOUR link merely shows several different IQ tests none which are linked to the current article.

Furthermore none of the cultural studies they describe describes a test for " average IQ of middle class white families." ( FYI A middle class family with the same cultural exposure should test similar, race is not the dependent factor).

Oh, I'm getting it, you don't like what I wrote, you have fixated on a sentence in a previous post and are annoyed that I don't agree with the article and consider it biased, weak, and misleading. You want to parse and argue and attempt to do by nitpicking rather than looking at the original reasoning behind why I disagree with the article. That is your right, and at least you are attempting to engage in a dialogue, albeit coming at it from a different angle.

Mygirl1 is correct, in that IQ tests are normalized for white middle class people, in general. There has been concern about ethnic bias.

except:

So, the creators of the test were using their own personal biases based on upbringing and cultural biases to create a series of tests that were supposed to register intelligence, according to the test creators.

no. they had access to white middle class people to test, retest, and standardize, and not as much access to minorities, so that's who the test was normalized to.

It is of note that although it is claimed that IQ tests are culturally biased, it has actually never been shown in research.

But to consider this point valid for the sake of our discussion here, we'd have to posit that somehow the researchers found all the poor black conservatives in Canada, and all the middle class white liberals for this test.

Actually late term abortions such as those account for only about 1% of all abortions and the fetuses aborted were wanted ones since you are not allowed an elective abortion past fetal viability (when it becomes an actual baby), so what's you're point?

Point is, your bullet-intelligence analysis is all wet.

Point is, your bullet-scissors-intelligence analysis is all wet since the extremely vast majority (over 98%) of abortions are done before fetal viability when a fetus actually becomes a baby. So abortion is NOT the equivalent of shooting someone in the head unless you are referring to the minuscule amount done past fetal viability that can't even be done unless it's necessary.

Lumping 98% of elective abortions done before fetal viability into the same category as the 1% done out of necessity past fetal viability is not a very intelligent thing to do.

Classic example right there.

Sees the other side as the "elitists" (those others that we don't understand and they scare us)

Another Elitist Attempt by the Left! Apparently, you can't be smart unless you go to college, which is why the Left are threatened when intelligence is questioned.

they used IQ score to determine intelligence.

you can't be intelligent unless you can prove you're intelligent, so not elitist at all. It's all based on merit, independently verifiable facts etc.

how very Leftist of them, huh?

Actually, the article makes a note that one study looked at people with similar education but the IQ's differed, so education does not play into it. Everyone has missed an important part with this article, it is stating that a lower IQ with social conservative beliefs leads to prejudice. This means, that someone with a lower IQ and who believes in social conservatism, tend be more prejudicial than any other combination. It does not mean that everyone with a low IQ is a social conservative.

greck,

you can't be intelligent unless you can prove you're intelligent

How do you define intelligence? And how reliable are IQ tests to measure success? I worked with plenty of so-call intellects, with Ivy League Educations, that were absolute failures in business. Were they belong is in College where naive kids will pay thousands of dollars for the teacher to tell them how to be smart.

How do you define intelligence?

IQ

score for the purpose of this article/study. A more complete definition: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

And how reliable are IQ tests to measure success?

they don't measure success, they measure intelligence. that's like judging the quality of a hammer by how well you can cut pipe with it.

I worked with plenty of so-call intellects, with Ivy League Educations, that were absolute failures in business.

and this is relevant...how?

Spo,

Well, then it seems you've misunderstood both the meaning of IQ, how statistics work, and the study in general.

Sure, you've likely met some people that were well educated which were business failures. Odds are strong, however, that those well-educated people weren't educated with a specialty focusing on running a business.

Secondly, you've likely known a lot more people that were not well educated that didn't do well in business.

As a rule, the higher the level of education, the higher the pay. Sorry, rather every study supports that as a finding. They are definitely correlated, empirically so, repeatedly demonstrated.

The study found that IQ, and scores on both math and verbal tests were correlated with racism.

Are you claiming that there is evidence to show that racists, as a group are either more well educated OR have higher IQs OR are smarter in some other way?

Education does not equal intelligence. You need a base intelligence level to obtain a degree. From that point discipline, drive and purpose is more an indicator of success then intelligence. That holds true through the educational system and afterwards. I find that most educated people that fail to succeed (whatever that means to them) want to put the blame for this on others instead of themselves. Many intelligent people consider themselves smarter then they really are; they give themselves too much credit.

I would like to see a comparision one day between who thinks they are smarter then they actually are and where exactly they land in their political ideology :)

Libertarian: Spot on! To believe that adherence to a particular political ideology is an indication of intelligence is rather naive. There are many questions about the efficacy of standardized IQ tests, generally related to the cultural biases and prejudices of the test creators.

Many here are apparently not aware of how many 'scientific' studies were done during the era of slavery to justify slavery due to the 'sub-normal' and 'beastial' intelligence of Negroes. It is very common to attempt to demonize a group (Jews) or to attempt to elevate a group (Aryans) via 'scientific studies.' This is no different.

Many here are apparently not aware of how many 'scientific' studies were done during the era of slavery to justify slavery due to the 'sub-normal' and 'beastial' intelligence of Negroes.

Those studies were done in the era of blood letting, when many studies were faith based more than science based. Studies didn't adhere to the scientific method as it does today.

I was unable to find the study so I don't believe nor disbelieve it, however you seem pretty sure. If you have the science to disprove this article, please let the data do the talking for you and link.

Oh dear, you can't find the 'study.' Perhaps it is because it is not one 'study' but an entire history of documented facts.

As to blood-letting, what is science if not a progression of theories and hypothesis, with experiments created to either prove or disprove said hypothesis. What you fail to comprehend is that this article was not based on scientific research as it is practiced in true science, there were no control groups, no experiments to either prove or disprove the argument. Rather, it was based on a series of interviews and numbers of interviewees withing certain career fields.

Now, those interviewed could have lied between their teeth, how do you prove, scientifically, that that was not the case? Please do not compare this article with true scientific research, it fails in that arena.

Oh dear, you can't find the 'study.'

This study is published in a psycology journal which is different from the studies you brought up. Don't confuse the two subjects.

What you fail to comprehend is that this article was not based on scientific research as it is practiced in true science, there were no control groups, no experiments to either prove or disprove the argument. Rather, it was based on a series of interviews and numbers of interviewees withing certain career fields

You didn't read the study. This paragraph right here tells me you didn't even take time to read the abstract!!! Geez. I'm wasting my time. I thought I was dealing with someone who read the study and knew what they were talking about.

there were no control groups

FYI you don't need a control group for a study unless you are 'CONTROLLING' for a variable in that group. w, ich are typically done in randomized CONTROL trials. A retrospective cohort study can be done without an control group. At the end of the study you control for confounding factors. Which you would know that they did, if you took the time to read the abstract.

Take care.

Sorry, I thought you were confusing the two, silly me. Psychology is a hard science, like molecular biology. Right? And you seem to miss that point.

Take care.

Psychology is a hard science, like molecular biology

If you think it's not hard science, pick up a neurophysiology and pharmacology book and then learn a thing or two about the fMRI research in psychology. You have about 4 decades to catch up on.

Psychiatry is not psychology,

There are a lot more racists in the GOP.

Isn't GOP code for Racist?

Really? You know for a fact that the GOP conservatives are racist? Where do you get your information? Hyperbole much? Guess if I state that liberals are Marxists, and that democrat is code for Marxist I would be stating a truth?

vehemently in "hate" with the institutions of higher learning?

Because they see the crap that Colleges are turning out, and because most Colleges are liberal based. The problem with this country is that we believe you must go to college to be smart and to get a job. The truth is that not everyone belongs in College, nor should they have to attend to get ahead in a career.

Another classic example of the mindset described in the article.

You fear what you don't understand and therefore you demonize it.

The truth is that not everyone belongs in College, nor should they have to attend to get ahead in a career.

tell that to the employers. The only way colleges are involved in such a thing is that one needs to have a college degree in order to teach college. It's not UC Berkeley's fault that Wells Fargo wants people to have a degree in finance.

Academic elitism is a charge sometimes levied at academic institutions and academics more broadly, arguing that academia or academics are prone to undeserved and/or pernicious elitism; the term "ivory tower" often carries with it an implicit critique of academic elitism. Criticism of perceived academic elitism may or may not target intellectuals in general, academic institutions or education itself, but always^{[citation needed]} targets present leadership, practices and/or policies in academia.

"Professors of humanities, with all their leftist fantasies, have little direct knowledge of American life and no impact whatever on public policy."^[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_elitism

Spo - So what does that mean for these die hard conservatives that went college for their careers? Does this mean that they are really liberals? Also, any education resource that promotes openended learning is liberal. Learning is not being restricted. It does not mean that these colleges are pushing a liberal political agenda, it means that all groups have the freedom to express their views and thoughts. One of the definitions for liberalism or liberty is freedom. You remember the saying, " Give me liberty, or give me death", it is talking about freedom.

You do understand that wiki is indicting the charge of elitism against the universities don't you?

You do realize that their point is against those who rail about "elitism"?

TReed,

It does not mean that these colleges are pushing a liberal political agenda,

Really, where have you been since the 60s?

blue wolf, thank you for pointing out the obvious!

Are you like Jim Carey in "Liar Liar" using evidence against yourself?

Lmao man!

@ TReed,

It's only freedom when you do what Spo says... ;-)

blue wolf, did you also major in Humanities?

No, I was a theology major.

And, just so you completely understand the quote you posted, it is an EXAMPLE of anti-elitism rhetoric.

blue wolf, I believe you misunderstood my position on Academic Elitism:

Consequently, as the cost of a university education continues to skyrocket, those who can't afford one are further penalized by vastly lower average salaries. Academic elitism thus hits them right where it counts, in the quality of their lives.

Someone else wrote the above, which I agree with and have tried to express differently in my earlier comments.

So then, when you said "another Elitist attempt by the left" you meant what exactly?

Spo - Well from 1979 -1988 I was in college double majoring in mathematics and computer science, then some graduate work in computer science. Then in 2004-2006 on my Master's in Software Engineering and preparing to start in a year and half on my doctorates in Neuroscience. And all of that time, I have never had a professor try to express one political view over another. They have tried to present all sides of a topic. Now, if presenting all sides is considered to be politically liberal, then one has to question just how much you know about liberalism and conservatism. For liberalism, I would direct you to the writings of John Locke. For conservatism, David Hume and Edmund Burke laid the groundwork.

To say that rising college costs is a form of elitism could be true for select institutions, but the majority are just being greedy. If it was true elitism, then student loans would be more difficult to get and they would have to ignore the federal mandate requiring schools to have a diverse population in race, creed, wealth, country and so on.

So on both comments, you are making generalizations which can be both true and false, thereby making them irrelevant.

The question becomes, are you envious of someone with more education or knowledge? And does this make them liberal or elitists?

Treed,

Thanks for sharing your schooling experience but it really isn't necessary. I am neither impressed or jealous, although I do find it quite humorous. Apparently I was paying more attention in College, although I didn't have to spend as much time getting my degrees, and recognized politics at work, and how it influenced young minds to think like their Alma Mater. Maybe you need to detox from the Academic mind set!

Maybe you should have went to a college that promoted your own self discovery. The truth is, when I graduated from my undergraduate work, I was fairly conservative. I was big fan of Nixon growing up and supported Reagan. I have only started to lean more liberal in the last ten years because I work in healthcare and I constantly am crunching numbers on reimbursement, supply chain and other expenses. I see firsthand the policies of both the Democrats and Republicans and I see the liberal policies as being more beneficial economically and to individuals. I don't agree with most of Obamacare but I do agree with the premise. Obamacare was bastardized by the lobbyists. So for me, my academic years actually made be conservative, but my experience has me leaning liberal.

TReed,

I was raised Liberal in a Democratic Household, and benefitted from the dogma until I started paying taxes. Now it is a whole NEW playing field.

That is fiscal conservatism and I am fiscally conservative. And socially liberal.

TReed Yes, this study does not apply to fiscal conservatives.

And therein lies the problem. Attempting to color a large group with a very broad brush smacks of stereotyping of the worst sort. I am a fiscal conservative, I am pro-choice and pro-environment. I have differing views on many subjects and cannot and will not be pigeon-holed. Too often a person may have one viewpoint on one particular subject and those opposed to that viewpoint will attempt to brand them with all the negative stereotyping they can come up with.

If you are not a social conservative, this study does not apply to you.

I was wondering, until I saw this article, why so many conservatives refer to themselves as independents.

I can only speak for myself. Depends on the issue....I am neither a rigid conservative or a liberal (never a leftist)

I was just pulling your leg :)

Hey, IndepentVoter...

You seen to self describe as sort of center-right.

Do you think the Republican party has gone too far to the right? And if so, on what particular issues?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm just curious.

Do you think the Republican party has gone too far to the right?

Yes

And if so, on what particular issues?

Not everything government is bad...the current GOP seems to give that impression.

I cannot vote for any of the GOP candidates....I wish Hillary was a choice....but no.

....I wish Hillary was a choice....

My big disappointment in Obama, although a careful reading of his books led me to expect it, is his triangulation. He's an awful lot like Bill Clinton in that regard, and I would have expected triangulation from Hillary as well.

It's hard to say where they would have diverged. Hillary probably wouldn't have pursued an overall health insurance reform bill this time around, probably. The thing about Hillary is that she does not shy away from a public fight. She also wouldn't be blindsided by dirty tricks. She'd be expecting them.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Damned if I know. I think you'd have to be stupid to be rallying behind a Michele Bachmann or a Newt Gingrich, but it's not like being a liberal reaps the rewards of superior intelligence and better presidential candidates. Democrats have no decent choices for president, either. Nobody in Washington is serious about doing anything that will actually fix the mess we are in.

Yup. Seems the extremists have gotten hold of control, either rabid right or frothing left and the middle ground is a very lonely place.

American, there is an easy way to account for that.

It's called confirmation bias.

It's why we don't simply ask people, "what do you think, do you know any racists, what kinda education do they have"...

I know some racist college grads. But the vast majority of the college grads that I know are not racist. The vast majority of racists that I know, however, are not college grads.

I know some racist college grads. But the vast majority of the college grads that I know are not racist. The vast majority of racists that I know, however, are not college grads.

Exactly. And as the investigators in this study asked, what, if anything, do we extrapolate from that about intelligence and political ideology.

"...Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Dr. Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice." [boldface mine]

And also from the article, boldface mine:

"Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, [Brian] Nosek [University of Virginia] 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."...

It's that correlational part that troubles me. After all, correlation doesn't prove causation. And, as I said earlier, what troubles me even more than that is exploiting good science for political sport or for using to thumb one's nose at political adversaries. Exploiting science with a political end goal in mind is lysenkoism of sorts, and it diminishes good science and gives it a black eye.

I agree with Hodson that, hopefully, if we can learn more about the whys and hows of prejudice, then maybe we can actually do something about it. I don't know, but I kind of doubt that one of the purposes of the study was to be used as a tool to ridicule others. Racism and prejudice deserve ridicule. But it does not justify stereotyping. However, using the logic and reasoning of some around here, it does justify it, and therefore I suppose we should ridicule all black males for their poor academic performance, crime stats, family unit problems and economic problems even though there are verifiable sociological and psychological reasons for much of it, not necessarily just innate dumbness. Is that what some self-righteous liberals around here are advocating? Right. I didn't think so.

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

Regarding Nosek's comment above, I agree. What strikes me as far more believable about all of what we're discussing here is the fact that extremist views, whether rightist or leftist--immoveable views regardless of the facts, logic and reason that can debunk them--are rooted in dogma and unthinking assumptions. I know one such person here on Newsvine who is notoriously radically leftist/Marxist but also illogically gung-ho Obama who fabricates "facts" and rationalizes all of his opinions based purely on ideas and notions out of his own head rather than than on substantiated, documented fact. He never substantiates his claims or provides proof for his so-called "facts." And he even has no apology for literally fabricating "facts" to make his points. And, of course, I know many right-wing persons who do the exact, same thing.

IOW, it's that dogma, that immoveable, insecure fear of moving outside the fantasy one has literally created for himself to explain everything that doesn't make sense and that seems, and maybe IS, unfair in life. It's almost like a security blanket, as if the truth, the facts, the logic, the reason, is simply too painful to face.

I don't necessarily believe that that sort of thing is rooted in political ideology, but rather, a lack of education about logic and reason and a lack of security to the point that to be "wrong" about something is unbearable. Some people literally have no education in logic, reason, critical and analytical thinking skills, and exacerbating that is insecurity.

But, yes, if the science proves that this occurs more often on the right end of the political spectrum, I can and do accept that. I wouldn't be one bit surprised. That's one thing.

I do believe, however, that there's some validity to the hypothesis that the root of the problem is extremism, regardless of which end of the spectrum it's rooted in, plus ignorance in general, inadequate education in the world and inadequate education in thinking and communicating logically, rationally and with accountability.

most conservatives that I have met are of very low intelligence

Get out more.

Agreed real, people say Obama is a socialist and when you ask them what Socialism even is they give you a blank stare.

duh, whaddyamean Jeff? LoL

You don't differentiate between socialism for people, ie the collective subsidizing all or socialism for corporations, ie the collective subsidizing oil companies, chemical, military etc

huh? whaddyamean

Stupidity has no preference over political ideology. I try not to generalize too much, but I view both extremes, right and left, as being less intelligent. Think of a bell curve, the extremes are on the low ends and the moderates are at the top of curve. Yes, this is a metaphor and I don't have data to definitively back up the assertion.

Socialism requires no private property ownership and either governmental or democratic control of capital and the means of production. The fact that the private corporations you mentioned actually exist, and that Obama has accepted campaign financing from some of the principals of some of them, proves that neither he nor this country is socialist.

being honest here....most conservatives that I have met are of very low intelligence, and most of them can't even explain anything they believe in beyond their 2000 word vocabulary...most of them are religious, and most of those are baptist...

I'm a Conservative, a Baptist, an English major (with a rather large vocabulary), and have an above-average IQ. Apparently we've never met, nor have you met any of my friends.

As IV stated, you should get out more.

fedupwithliberals Did you vote for bush twice?

There's a kernel of truth to stereotypes. After all, that's how they get started. They aren't just a figment of somebody's imagination.

HOWEVER, the problem is, as you, fedupwithliberals, rightly pointed out, that stereotypes tar and feather a lot of people who simply don't fit the stereotype. IOW, they're inaccurate across the board.

If it's unacceptable to stereotype blacks, Hispanics, Jews, whatever, whoever, then it stands to reason that it's unacceptable to stereotype anybody, regardless of political opinion, race, religion, class, socioeconomic station in life, etc.

After all, you never know who it is in that group you're stereotyping who might just happen to agree with you on that one issue on which there is common ground and be the very ally you need to make friends and influence people.

If bigots and racists are people that go around mainly stereotyping other people, don't they deserve to be stereotyped?

You mean like saying all conservatives are stupid, ignorant racists? That kind of stereotyping other people?

Apparently ignorance knows no political ideology...

You mean like saying all conservatives are stupid, ignorant racists? That kind of stereotyping other people?

Yes. That's what I mean. Not all conservatives are stupid, ignorant racists. That's why I hate stereotypes. As I said in my 14.8: "...After all, you never know who it is in that group you're stereotyping who might just happen to agree with you on that one issue on which there is common ground and be the very ally you need to make friends and influence people."

TS- I was actually responding to the post right above mine, but your point is valid. I have friends and family on both sides of the political spectrum, and we all find things we have in common, be it sports, hobbies, music, etc.

My stepbrother is as liberal as they come, as well as agnostic/atheist, and we still manage to find common ground. We talk football, share stories about our kids, discuss books and movies, and have a great time together. We also, on rare occasions, agree on random socio-political issues (which tends to shock both of us!)

Truth, the article isn't saying that all conservatives are bigots.

It is saying that bigots are more likely conservatives and people with low-iqs.

Truth,

I think a good example is breast cancer and women. Not all women get breast cancer, but breast cancer is far more likely to affect women.

people say Obama is a socialist and when you ask them what Socialism even is they give you a blank stare.

Obama is not a socialist he is a corporatist meaning he gives preference to corporations over people his health care bill is a prime example of people being forced to comply with big corpo. His relationship with GE is also a good example of this.

Ralph Nader is a good example of a socialist.

You do not choose your family, they are your family and you have to accept them as your family.

The repub party is mostly a racist party. I think that you can say that in that party, there are too many people that are not against racism.

Truth, the article isn't saying that all conservatives are bigots. It is saying that bigots are more likely conservatives and people with low-iqs...I think a good example is breast cancer and women. Not all women get breast cancer, but breast cancer is far more likely to affect women.

I understand and agree. However, if picking a man and a woman at random, it's more than likely that neither will have breast cancer. That was more to the point I was making. But, yes, more women than men have breast cancer. And more racists and bigots exist within politically conservative groups. But those are different and important distinctions to be made.

...those are different and important distinctions to be made--meaning, randonmess versus control groups.

If bigots and racists are people that go around mainly stereotyping other people, don't they deserve to be stereotyped?

No. They deserve to be called out for their behavior and irrational beliefs, but their own race, sex, religion, national origin, etc. should have nothing to do with it. What you're suggesting is that stereotyping is OK based on the biases, prejudices and bigotry of the person doing the stereotyping. I disagree. It's the behavior and irrational beliefs that are at issue, NOT race, or other group identifiers. Two wrongs don't make a right. You're suggesting that they do make a right.

Just calling them out for their behavior has not been working. They obviously need to pay a higher price.

There are more things that you are allowed to do when you are defending yourself against specific aggressors.

Offense is not the same thing as self defense. I see that you believe in a world where aggressors have the upper hand.

They obviously need to pay a higher price.

A "higher price"? Such as? Be specific.

Such as reciprocity.

Then that's giving approval to stereotyping. Either it's OK or it's not. In your book, it's OK if wielded in revenge. Believe me, I understand. It feels good. But it's also childish and shoots to hell every argument against it.

You approve and encourage something when you allow it to happen unchallenged. You disapprove, discourage and work to eliminate something when you take positive action to fight it.

I am not proposing to stereotype the general population. I am only proposing to stereotype the stereotypers as a direct and swift response to their offensive behavior.

I do not care if people think that it is childish if it achieves a higher objective.

I am sick and tired of racists and racism.

You disapprove, discourage and work to eliminate something when you take positive action to fight it.

I agree. But using stereotyping, which involves more bigotry, is obviously defeating the purpose of "disapproving, discouraging and working to eliminate..." and is obviously not taking positive action, but, rather, stooping to the same negative tactic we complain about. It obviously spawns more anger and insult.

However, if the objective is to simply vent one's own hatred and bigotry, then that's something else entirely. But if you truly want to try to change people's minds and attitudes, insulting them is not the way to do it. Or if changing people's minds and attitudes is impossible, the next best thing is to challenge what is irrational and not factual, and, again, doing so with more insults won't work.

Stereotypes get started in the first place because there's a kernel of truth to them. I say, work on that kernel of truth and leave the rest (that is, by definition, the stereotyping) out of it.

After all, isn't this entire thread about "intelligence," education, IQ, logic, reason, etc.? And who is it that's supposed to have the market on that if we're to believe in stereotypes and their kernels of truth? I think the general consensus is that it's those of us who have socially liberal viewpoints.

IOW, those among us who are smug and complacent in their membership in the "favored" group here on the social left would be well-advised not to so obviously hoist themselves on their own petard.

I do not care if people think that it is childish if it achieves a higher objective.

You obviously do care, because you're defending stereotyping and are trying to rationalize doing it, and, by definition stereotyping does not achieve a higher objective. It tars and feathers some innocent members of the group who might be your allies on a few common issues. But, do you blame them if they don't choose to become your allies on those one or two key issues? I don't. Dumbness, when it comes to tactics, is not confined to the right or the left. Partisan warfare is its own game, and it has not one iota to do with intelligence if the end goal is something other than a diplomatic and mutual understanding and acceptance of differences. If the end goal is a line in the sand and mutual hatred and ongoing warfare, have at it. It's nothing more than opposite sides (right and left) of the very same coin.

I am sick and tired of racists and racism.

Who isn't.

Don't agree strikes me as being a really stupid statement.

Racists are @!$%#s, so by your equation, racists were smart kids at one time.

I think you have proved my point.

Yes, I do not see any logic in that post.

Yeah I have but they sure thought they had high intelligence lol Didn't make it anymore true though

There was a time in my life that I was a ass after awhile though I quit drinking...

Guess what else offers structure and order? The scientific principal. So are we then to assume that scientists suffer from low IQ's and are vulnerable to holding prejudices?

Wrong characterization of science.

The main concern of science is not to offer structure or order. It is to understand the Universe, regardless of whether it is order or chaos. Therefore a scientist cannot limit what he or she will understand or accept as real based on pre-existing prejudices or beliefs. A scientist lets the Universe speak for itself and changes his or her prejudices and beliefs to accomodate the emperical truths that are discovered. This requires a brain that can navigate complexities and critically analyze any contradictions until a clear, provable, theory can be rationalized.

Social conservatives hang on to pre-existing prejudices and beliefs no matter what evidence the Universe reveals. This requires much less brain power and much more emotionally driven rationale for hanging on to beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary. It is also known as faith.

Wow, hotlink, I think that you are a wonderful example demonstrating the point of the very article. LOL.

Science is empirical, it's based on testing where any experiment can overturn a premise, assertion, hypothesis or theory.

Conservatism is based on authoritarianism. Read the article plz and 1.15 and 3.1 above.

But, sunshine girl, the scientific process, requires structure and order. That structured, ordered process, however, doesn't obviate an open mind nor does it tolerate bias or a manipulated result.

Social conservatives hang on to pre-existing prejudices and beliefs no matter what evidence the Universe reveals.

Some of them do, for sure. But I know a couple of others here on Newsvine who have actually put forth some logical, reasoned arguments in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, as just one example. I don't agree, and I'm not convinced, but if I'm honest, I have to admit they put forth a pretty good effort to base their arguments on the actual civil issues that are pertinent, instead of the usual, predictable, stereotypical, irrelevant moral issues that are not pertinent. It does, and can, happen.

Conservatism is based on authoritarianism.

As a conservative, socially liberal, registered Democrat, the above is not true as it regards me, and I do count. What you're talking about is a relatively new, corrupted incarnation of conservatism, vis a vis the current Republican Party and the Tea Party. That has nothing whatsoever to do with true conservatism. Sorry. It's a common mistake, but a mistake nevertheless. Don't confuse true conservatism with modern-day American GOP-ism. Please.

Truth Sleuth They are talking about social conservatives.

The principle investigators of the study were talking about social conservatives. A lot here are talking about "conservatives" in general, which, I suspect, they really mean, Republicans and Tea Partyers in the news.

But, sunshine girl, the scientific process, requires structure and order.

Truth Sleuth, I agree with you. However it is important to mention that the structure and order comes from open observation and respect for the natural laws of the Universe and not an ideology/doctrine that is irrefutable. Scientists will re-define and re-order if necessary based on evidence. Conservatism protects the definitions and order no matter what the evidence reveals.

By the way, I would love to hear a social conservative arguement against abortion that was rooted purely in science and not any superstitious, religious or patriarchal belief.

OK. I'm pro-choice but I'll give it a try. When a male and female of species homo sapiens procreate the resultant offspring of said union will be homo sapiens. The offspring will not belong to, say, felis domesticus or cephalapoda, rather, said offspring will be a human being. It is unlawful to kill another human being, people go to prison for doing so. If the offspring of a human couple is killed prior to birth, said offspring will remain a human being, regardless of how long said offspring had remained in the womb.

Now, if the laws against murdering a fellow human being are invalid then there is no reason to ban abortions or any sort of murder, since human life is of no value. Pure science would maintain that human beings produce human beings. When a human ova is fertilized by a human sperm, said resulting mass of tissue will not, if allowed to go full term in the womb of the human mother, produce a puppy.

. It is unlawful to kill another human being, people go to prison for doing so

Interesting argument. However if you are going to go down that route abortion will be ruled legal. Why? Because you can take another human's life in self defense. Meaning if someone is risking your life you can take theirs to save yours and you will not go to prison.

You are also not legally required to give up your lifesource to support another (e.g. you can't be forced to give up a kidney, can't be forced to give blood) Thus from a legal sense a woman can choose not to give up her life and vital organs for the support of another human. A woman can take the life of something that is risking hers.

But, but...so human beings don't give birth to other human beings? Pure science is wrong? Humans can birth kittens? You seem to dance around the original premise with lots of justifications which essentially ignore the one point, namely that pure science will state that human beings produce human offspring. That was the point which the other poster sought to have clarified.

The other point of your argument, namely that a woman can take the life of something that risks hers., pre-supposes that all pregnancies are life threatening conditions.

I would love to hear a social conservative arguement against abortion that was rooted purely in science and not any superstitious, religious or patriarchal belief.

Personally, I would love to hear one based on what counts: the civil rights nature of the Constitution and the philosophy upon which it was based. Yes, science is ancillary to that, but the bottom-line issue, as far as the legality of abortion is concerned in the USA, is civil rights, not moral imperatives or theological speculation about the soul and personhood of a fetus. The latter is unknown and unknowable, and we don't base laws in a civilized society or what "feels" right or what might be or what might not be. We base them on what we know. And we know for a fact that a woman is a full-fledged, real human person under the law. We know no such thing about a zygote, embryo or fetus.

However, theoretically, if we did know that the z/e/f is indeed a person, then it changes nothing, because the rights of the woman carrying it and sustaining it with her body take precedence over it. The fetus is subservient to her by its very nature--it's part of her body. Her body. It is not its own body or its own person as long as its attached to her uterine wall.

pure science will state that human beings produce human offspring.

Of course.

The other point of your argument, namely that a woman can take the life of something that risks hers., pre-supposes that all pregnancies are life threatening conditions.

That's not a logical statement. A woman can "take the life of" the fetus for reasons other than risks to her health and her life. She can choose an abortion because, in her estimation, the pregnancy is a "risk" to her life choices, plans, ambitions, convenience. And, yes, that's offensive to a lot of good and decent people. But the Constitution protects all manner of things that some people consider "selfish" or "immoral."

All pregnancies, probably most pregnancies, are not life-threatening. A woman can have an abortion, for whatever reason, because it is her constitutional choice as a person to make that choice. A person's rights under the Constitution are not subservient to the fetus attached to her body.

I think science is trying to find a convincing reason to put a chip in everyone's brain.

Sorry......I just can't help it...

http://socrates1.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/11/4268729-should-computer-chips-be-implanted-at-birth-yes-poll-included

Soc-

the libs are so indoctrinated they think it is intelligence. maybe they already have a chip.