I have always found this rather obvious, but there appears to be an extensive study done that proves its veracity. Source and study details: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full This is a summary from The Register. It seems to be a credible study, though I would appreciate insights if it is unreliable. It makes a lot of sense. Decreased intelligence leads to inefficient communication and an inability to understand other people. A failure to understand others is a trademark of conservatism and bigotry besides. What are you opinions? Do you acknowledge the logic and study or not? Discuss.
Agreed on the fact it makes a lot of sense. Even more reason for me to dislike the Tea Party, heh. However, I am slightly concerned about their being a 35-38% chance of racial/sexual prejudice in the above median mark though. This is perhaps straying a bit off topic, but what is the median mark here? It is probably along the lines of willing to work with LGBT/minorities and still having an air of dislike towards them, but I'm curious as to how the defined it, and also where the 35-38% of above average people who were prejudiced fell upon it. Granted, this can probably all be explained by who their parents were and what their cognitive abilities were when they were 10 and such.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. This entire argument is based on the idea that correlation is equal to causation, which is not true. The same logic could be applied to "prove" that racism causes lower IQs, or that having more birthdays causes you to live longer. Let's take a real life example. Richard Nixon, even though he was a terrible, terrible man, ran an anti drug campaign, mostly against marijuana and talking about how it's a gateway drug. This was "proven" by the fact that 80% of cocaine users also smoked pot. The logic was that because 80% of cocaine users smoked pot, that must mean that 80% of marijuana users went on to do cocaine. Back in the 19th century, a large number of humans of average intelligence were racists, as were many of higher intelligence. My conclusion from that? Average and higher intelligence caused racism. Tl;dr: There is a correlation between the two, but that doesn't mean that one causes the other. I call bogus research.
The argument is that there is causation? I was under the impression that the argument was that those with lower IQ are at higher risk of developing conservative ideas and bigotry. The notion that IQ is static and comes first is what caused the problem you are having. Racism is not inborn, while IQ is. Given the correlation and this fact, we can determine that IQ is a significant genetic factor in causing conservatism and bigotry. If you have an argument that actually contradicts this reasoning rather than citing examples that do not have a basis in genetics, please do so. How did you rate the intelligence of those back in the nineteenth century? Do you have your own statistics that we can use to compare to today's? You are assuming that they were racist and that average intelligence is not synonymous with low intelligence. What this study shows or attempts to show is that the lower your IQ is, the more likely you are to be conservative or bigoted. Your counterargument relies on correlation versus causation and a difference of circumstance, but this data would have been just as valid in the nineteenth century as now. People of lower intelligence were still more likely to be conservative then, whatever the default risk for that place and time was. I agree that the definitions could be clearer, but I am not terribly interested in the exact accuracy of percentages so long as the original point stands. Again, that point is that a lower IQ makes you more likely to become a conservative or a bigot, and that the lower your IQ is, the more bigoted you are likely to be. Though I will admit you are correct about the parents. That is a massive factor, in fact a larger factor, but IQ still plays a large part. That is the general idea being expressed.
I think that's a bit of a stereotype. I actually know a few guys who are a bit socially deprived, yet do incredible in school. IQ doesn't determine social activity.
How did you get this from the study? Being a recluse has nothing to do with either conservatism or bigotry, nor does it relate to intelligence. This was not was implied or stated in the study. I do not understand where you are coming from.
I'm not seeing where exactly this study shows that less intelligent people are more likely to become conservatives. The study is about racism. Unless I'm understanding this phrase incorrectly: Are they saying those kids grew up with conservative parents? Because that's not the same as growing up to become conservative, which the article doesn't mention. The article seems to just assume a correlation between racism and conservatism (Which is disturbing and kind of extremely insulting)
That correlation is actually ridiculously obvious. I have not met a racist liberal to this day, and every racist I have met has claimed to be conservative if they acknowledged politics at all. Do you have evidence or personal experience to the contrary, or were you insulted needlessly?
Yes, I have personal experience to the contrary. I have very ignorant (And very unintelligent, mind you) family members who are racist and liberal. Politically liberal, of course, in the sense that taxes should be high-particularly on the rich, strong belief in social programs, and hatred of big corporations. And racist, in the sense that "A niggеr cannot be president". If the correlation between conservatism and racism is so obvious, please give me a premise ---> conclusion argument for racism where the premise is inherently conservative.
I fail to see how those people are liberal, then. Hating big corporations is extremely common on both sides of the spectrum, and support for welfare is also something that I consider a conservative trait. The more wealthy you are as a conservative, the less likely you are to support social programs, and the less wealthy you are, the more likely you are to support them. It should be noted that the unintelligent will do what helps them most. Whether that leans towards supporting programs that they will profit from or stopping taxes that will affect them negatively, that is what they will do. Views that I associate with liberalism are the legalization of drugs, worker's rights, the dissolving of borders and relaxing of immigration laws, and anti-war views. If the people that you speak of do not support these, then they are not liberals in my book. My premise is that a conservative mindset is based on protecting the status quo and improving the living conditions of oneself and one's friends, whatever that status may be for the conservative in question and whoever the conservative's friends might be as well. You do not have to be white to a conservative nor a conservative racist, for example. It is is the fear of the unknown that is the common factor. The study's premise is that a lower IQ makes one less likely to understand people and lowers one's general ability to communicate with them, resulting in a fear of things different. Having a lower capacity to deal with things that they do not understand, they will hold a natural resentment for and fear of them, creating an increased alienation towards new experiences. Combining them, people who are conservative encompass the vast majority of racists and other bigots regardless of race because they fear things they cannot understand or with which they have little experience. That is my conclusion.
Well I don't think that's a very fair assessment. Whether you support social programs should depend on your way of thinking, not your current social status. I'm not wealthy in the slightest, but I don't support welfare or most other social programs. I think it's really, really lame that my parents collect unemployment (Though I'd never tell them that). Well, they do support all of those things, but I fail to understand how that makes them liberal. I also support all of those things (Except for dissolving of borders) but I am conservative. Literally speaking, a liberal is someone who believes that the government should be heavily involved with matters of the people, and a conservative is someone who believes the opposite (Which is I why I consider legalization of drugs and relaxing of immigration laws to be conservative views [Even though I realize many conservatives don't think that way]). I don't see how the views you're talking about should be associated with either party, those basically boil down to moral issues, which shouldn't affect which political party you support. ...And this is a false premise. Again, like I just said, a conservative is someone who believes government should not be heavily involved in the matters of the people. I don't accept this because your definition of a conservative seems to be false. You seem to assume that a conservative is someone who fears things they don't understand...this is false.
Please define liberal and conservative as you use them. As I have experienced it, 'Republican' and 'Democrat' are in the political spectrum, but conservative and liberal are preferential tendencies. For instance, I would consider Ron Paul extremely liberal in his tendencies, though he often gets called a conservative. I do not understand what the defining line in your sense is other than what you call yourself. These are the definitions I am getting from my dictionary. con·serv·a·tive adjective /kənˈsərvətiv/ 1. Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion lib·er·al adjective /ˈlib(ə)rəl/ 1. Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values - they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people2. Favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms - liberal citizenship laws3. (in a political context) Favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform Does the premise make more sense now? Or do you believe that there is a reason to avoid progress other than fear?
This is intruiging to say the least. It is a common thought that racism and low intelligence are entwined with each other, but I never considered political view. Maybe I just never cared. Still it's quite fascinating to find that out and all, however I would add that with promotion of the normality of homosexuality in society might have contributed to some of those results being affected, since over those decades the amount of exposure to accepting homosexuality would be greater than if they were asked and homosexuality hadn't of been more normalised over time. But overall I suppose it's accurate enough to say there is a link between conservatism and IQ. But there are, obviously, a number of problems with the studies, too numerous to go over in detail unless I'm being paid to do it.
Okay, when you're using conservative and liberal in the non-political sense, that makes sense. I usually use "liberal" and "conservative" as synonymous with "Democrat" and "Republican" while online to avoid confusion with non-americans
Under your previous definition of conservatism (Which is not the kind of political conservatism I subscribe to), yes.
Please noted that the difference I portrayed was that political parties have no relevance on conservatism or liberalism. There are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. However, please do not mistake me for removing them from politics simply because I remove them from parties. Allow me to quote myself and expand on the political views I have observed liberals and conservatives to hold, and their reasons for these views. Views that I associate with liberalism are the legalization of drugs, worker's rights, the dissolving of borders and relaxing of immigration laws, and anti-war views. I will add on pro-choice and support for minorities such as the LGBT community for good measure. Religions vary, though church going is somewhat rare among them. When asked, their views are based on a wide variety of things, but most commonly a general respect for their fellow men. Views that I associate with conservatism are support for extreme drug laws, lower taxes for their class and higher taxes for the wealthy (unless they happen to be wealthy), strengthening of borders and deporting immigrants, pro-war views, pro-life views, and anti-gay views and a general intolerance of minorities (compared to liberals). On a whole, they identify with a church, Christian or otherwise, and will often refer to their faith as a basis for their conservatism. This is the trend I have encountered in my experience both in people I have met personally and politicians who claim either side.
Again, I'd have to point out that other than dissolving of borders and pro-choice views, I support everything you associate with liberalism, and am against everything you associate with conservatism (except for pro-life views) I suppose using the definitions you brought up, I would have to consider myself liberal. However, I am politically conservative because I believe in limited government. What would that make me, socially liberal but politically conservative?
That is a crippled view of politics. You are seeing it in one dimension. There are at least two dimensions to one's political standing. These two dimensions can be plotted on a plane. You can plot yourself on a political Cartesian coordinate plane like the one below. Such a graph is called a political compass. It is more accurate than any party alignment paradigm. On the right, we have capitalist sensibilities. On the left, we have sociallist sensibilities. On the top, we have authoritarian values. On the bottom, we have anarchist and libertarian values. While there may not be a direct association between conservatism and capitalism, a tendency towards being capitalist falls under conservative traits and as such those who are extremely capitalistic in their politics are more likely to be bigots and vice versa. You are more likely to be a capitalist if you distrust or do not understand other people because capitalism focuses on the privilege and profit of the individuals who hold it rather than the overall benefit of those around them. That certainly fits in well with the study I originally posted. It sounds as if you are slightly on the capitalist side of the x axis and far more on the libertarian side of the y axis. Is that accurate?
