Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

[davmat787]

So the forum consensus is roast the OP and ignore the questions he asked.

Yup that will solve everything. As we stick our heads into a hole in the ground in vindication of the Ostrich strategy. Which explains why we only find Ostriches in zoos and on P&N because they can no longer adapt to a modern world. But on the plus side, Ostriches can kick really hard. Just like Ostriches on P&N.

Yee haw, I welcome out new bird brain Ostrich overlords.

Yet you do exactly what you are criticizing the thread for once again LL. You say the OP's questions was ignored, and offer no answers. Congratulations.

 

[dank69]

This is too funny the OP is who is making this thread.

That said once the left has scientific proof the right is crazy and not playing with a full deck what do they intend to do with it?

We plan to educate people before it's too late and they are set in their stupid fearful ways.

 

[Throckmorton]

Seriously, I think this kind of thing is borderline bigotry. I don't like it from conservatives or liberals. Denigrating another group of people as inferior is just wrong, even if it's based on "science".

 

[davmat787]

Seriously, I think this kind of thing is borderline bigotry. I don't like it from conservatives or liberals. Denigrating another group of people as inferior is just wrong, even if it's based on "science".

Ahh, don't feel bad. It is simply easier for the intellectually lazy to hate on people in groups rather than judging an individual by their own character and performing their own assessment. Makes it easier for the left (in this case) to hate on the right because there is a yahoo article, so every righty must be a prejudicial piece of shit.

 

[Ausm]

So McOwned are you admitting that you have conservative tendencies that cause you to be prejudiced?

Can you describe "Conservative" tendencies?

 

[woolfe9999]

Seriously, I think this kind of thing is borderline bigotry. I don't like it from conservatives or liberals. Denigrating another group of people as inferior is just wrong, even if it's based on "science".

Is the very practice of performing research on this sort of thing bigoted, or do you think the findings of the research are biased due to bigotry?

I see this sort of thing as analogous to the debate over comparing IQ of the African-American population with that of Caucasians. Some say the research is incorrect for one reason or another. Others say the very area of study should be avoided because it can produce nothing but further divisiveness.

 

[JS80]

makes sense. Of course all the hill billy inbred fucks probably pull the average down.

then how do you explain blacks, hispanics, and asians who are heavily socially conservative and vote heavily Democrat?

 

[JSt0rm]

I was seeing prejudice and social conservatism as not the same thing. Are you telling me they are the same thing? That's kind of alarming because that's a lot of people.

 

[JS80]

I was seeing prejudice and social conservatism as not the same thing. Are you telling me they are the same thing? That's kind of alarming because that's a lot of people.

The study is saying they are the same thing

title: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
body: Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

This is sort of like a study saying people who are fat have a tendency to over eat.

 

[shadow9d9]

Fear of change, fear/hate of anyone different, follow what they are told they should believe from a handful of sources.. yes, the study makes sense.

 

[cybrsage]

We plan to educate people before it's too late and they are set in their stupid fearful ways.

So you plan on removing liberals from the world? I thought you wanted MORE people like yourself, not less.


See what I did there?

 

[cybrsage]

The study is saying they are the same thing

title: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
body: Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found

Study was already debunked in another thread.

 

[Abwx]

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.

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.

Not surprisingly , the dumb is still generaly intelligent enough,
even if it s barely , to know that he is dumb.

As such he see himself as a potential systematic loser in a world
of competition.

Racism will be his main tool in suppressing any concurrence
from minorities , assuming he is part of the major ethnical group.

Restricted to white people , the racist will ask for preference
of his ethnical group for jobs and career advancement as well
as biological reproduction.

Likewise , in such a society governed by ethnicity , the minorities
dumbest part will devellop some kind of counter racism with a symetrical
approach that will magnify the group s supposed qualities ,
as is the case in afro american and hispanic communities.

All in all , egoisticism under the guise of ethnic solidarity..

 

[Throckmorton]

Is the very practice of performing research on this sort of thing bigoted, or do you think the findings of the research are biased due to bigotry?

I see this sort of thing as analogous to the debate over comparing IQ of the African-American population with that of Caucasians. Some say the research is incorrect for one reason or another. Others say the very area of study should be avoided because it can produce nothing but further divisiveness.

Using them to bash an entire group of people is what is bigoted.

 

[CptObvious]

I'm gonna generalize and say the conclusion is right. Social conservatives tend to take more things on faith and superstition, have less exposure to different cultures, and have less intellectually demanding jobs. Fiscal conservatives on the other hand are smarter than average - I don't agree with them on all points, but at least I don't feel the urge to facepalm every time I hear them argue.

 

[Munky]

In other news, women have overall lower IQ than men, and blacks generally have lower IQ than whites. How does the socially-enlightened, progressively-liberal, feminist-pandering, "Obama gunna pay mah mortgage" crowd reconcile that inconvenient fact?

 

[Abwx]

In other news, women have overall lower IQ than men, and blacks generally have lower IQ than whites. How does the socially-enlightened, progressively-liberal, feminist-pandering, "Obama gunna pay mah mortgage" crowd reconcile that inconvenient fact?

For your insight , it has been noticed that a white american
with an IQ of 70 is close to debility while africans measured at the
same number were people working and having normal social life.

The problem is that IQ is linked to things like studies wich
are partially a memory training , not only matter of intelligence.

 

[sportage]

Troll thread detected.

We already discussed the biased study about libral/conservative in another thread.

WEEE WAAA WEEE WAAA WEEE WAAA
Oh Shit... the forum troll cop. Hide the pot...

 

[monovillage]

A really poor study with exceedingly bad use of statistics, but don't believe me, read this rebuttal from William M. Briggs (statistician to the Stars)

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118

"When the kids became 33 and 30 year olds, they were asked whether they agreed with 13 or 16 questions like, “Schools should teach children to obey authority”, “Family life suffers if mum is working full-time.”

Another was, “People who break the law should be rehabilitated.” Just kidding! It’s actually, “People who break the law should be given stiffer sentences.” The bias in the question wording is ignored.

Another question was, “None of the political parties would do anything to benefit me.” Is agreeing or disagreeing with that a “conservative” position? What would the Occupy people say? Another, “Being single provides more time to experience life and find out about yourself.” Conservative or liberal?

According to the NCDS (pdf), there were about 50 questions, of which only 13 were used. A “conservative”, then, is whatever Hodson and Busseri say it is. The same thing goes for what a “racist” is."


"Lo, they found small p-values. The authors appear unaware that samples of this size are practically guaranteed to spit out small p-values.

What makes the study ludicrous, even ignoring the biases, manipulations, and qualifications just outlined, by the authors’ own admission the direct effect size for “g” on “racism” is only -0.01 for men and 0.02 for women. Utterly trivial; close enough to no effect to be no effect, and statistically “significant” only because of the massive sample size.

The effect size for “conservative ideology” directly predicting “racism” is higher (0.69 and 0.51). But all that means is that the questions the authors picked for these two attitudes are roughly correlated with one another. In other words, “None of the political parties would do anything to benefit me” is crudely correlated with “I
wouldn’t mind working with people from other races” and so forth.

Yet the authors have the temerity to conclude, “These results from large, nationally representative data sets
provide converging evidence that lower g in childhood predicts greater prejudice in adulthood and, furthermore, that socially conservative ideology mediates much of this effect.”

Truly, statistics can “prove” anything"

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Truly, statistics can “prove” anything"

Apparently even something contrary to the clearly observable world.

 

[cybrsage]

WEEE WAAA WEEE WAAA WEEE WAAA
Oh Shit... the forum troll cop. Hide the pot...

I did laugh!

 

[soundforbjt]

A really poor study with exceedingly bad use of statistics, but don't believe me, read this rebuttal from William M. Briggs (statistician to the Stars)

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118

"When the kids became 33 and 30 year olds, they were asked whether they agreed with 13 or 16 questions like, “Schools should teach children to obey authority”, “Family life suffers if mum is working full-time.”

Another was, “People who break the law should be rehabilitated.” Just kidding! It’s actually, “People who break the law should be given stiffer sentences.” The bias in the question wording is ignored.

Another question was, “None of the political parties would do anything to benefit me.” Is agreeing or disagreeing with that a “conservative” position? What would the Occupy people say? Another, “Being single provides more time to experience life and find out about yourself.” Conservative or liberal?

According to the NCDS (pdf), there were about 50 questions, of which only 13 were used. A “conservative”, then, is whatever Hodson and Busseri say it is. The same thing goes for what a “racist” is."


"Lo, they found small p-values. The authors appear unaware that samples of this size are practically guaranteed to spit out small p-values.

What makes the study ludicrous, even ignoring the biases, manipulations, and qualifications just outlined, by the authors’ own admission the direct effect size for “g” on “racism” is only -0.01 for men and 0.02 for women. Utterly trivial; close enough to no effect to be no effect, and statistically “significant” only because of the massive sample size.

The effect size for “conservative ideology” directly predicting “racism” is higher (0.69 and 0.51). But all that means is that the questions the authors picked for these two attitudes are roughly correlated with one another. In other words, “None of the political parties would do anything to benefit me” is crudely correlated with “I
wouldn’t mind working with people from other races” and so forth.

Yet the authors have the temerity to conclude, “These results from large, nationally representative data sets
provide converging evidence that lower g in childhood predicts greater prejudice in adulthood and, furthermore, that socially conservative ideology mediates much of this effect.”

Truly, statistics can “prove” anything"

So, a right-wing conservative statistician disagrees with the findings. How unlikely is that?

 

[Xenon]

This is sort of like a study saying people who are fat have a tendency to over eat.

I agree. This results of this study is obvious. It's why this country is in such poor shape. Stupid people don't know they are stupid and they are dragging this country down.

 

[cybrsage]

I agree. This results of this study is obvious. It's why this country is in such poor shape. Stupid people don't know they are stupid and they are dragging this country down.

The crazy thing is that these stupid people then create a study based on improper science and a bad use of statistics and then claim those who disagree with them are actually the stupid ones.