Here's something most TOLers will not consider ...

[PureX]

from Phychology Today

Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?
by Goal Auzeen Saedi Ph.D.


This morning as I logged onto Facebook, I came upon this image.

Having followed the Boston marathon and MIT shooting coverage initially, I lost some interest when it came down to the “hunt.” As much as justice matters to me, so does tact and class, and the sensationalism of manhunts always leaves me uncomfortable. I also knew it would be a matter of time before the political rhetoric would change from the victims and wounded to the demographic factors of the suspects—namely race and religion. And alas, it has.

However, what struck me most about this image posted above was the Facebook page it came from, “Too Informed to Vote Republican.” I wondered about this, recalling an old journal article I’d come across when studying anti-Islamic attitudes post 9/11. The paper referenced a correlation between conservatism and low intelligence. Uncertain of its origin, I located a thought-provoking article published in one of psychology’s top journals, Psychological Science, which in essence confirms this.

Hodson and Busseri (2012) found in a correlational study that lower intelligence in childhood is predictive of greater racism in adulthood, with this effect being mediated (partially explained) through conservative ideology. They also found poor abstract reasoning skills were related to homophobic attitudes which was mediated through authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact.

What this study and those before it suggest is not necessarily that all liberals are geniuses and all conservatives are ignorant. Rather, it makes conclusions based off of averages of groups. The idea is that for those who lack a cognitive ability to grasp complexities of our world, strict-right wing ideologies may be more appealing. Dr. Brian Nosek explained it for the Huffington Post as follows, “ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simple solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.” For an excellent continuation of this discussion and past studies, please see this article from LiveScience (link is external).


Further, studies have indicated an automatic association between aggression, America, and the news. A study conducted by researchers at Cornell and The Hebrew University (Ferguson & Hassin, 2007) indicated, “American news watchers who were subtly or nonconsciously primed with American cues exhibited greater accessibility of aggression and war constructs in memory, judged an ambiguously aggressive person in a more aggressive and negative manner, and acted in a relatively more aggressive manner toward an experimenter following a mild provocation, compared with news watchers who were not primed” (p. 1642). American “cues” refers to factors such as images of the American flag or words such as “patriot.” Interestingly, this study showed this effect to be independent of political affiliation, but suggested a disturbing notion that America is implicitly associated with aggression for news watchers.

Taken together, what do these studies suggest? Excessive exposure to news coverage could be toxic as is avoidance of open-minded attitudes and ideals. Perhaps turn off the television and pick up a book? Ideally one that exposes you to differing worldviews.​

 

[GuySmiley]

Also from Psychology Today
Interesting that the findings aren't consistent in different countries. Also interesting that when you look at specific issues in the US, libertarians have higher IQ's.

 

[brewmama]

from Phychology Today

Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?
by Goal Auzeen Saedi Ph.D.


This morning as I logged onto Facebook, I came upon this image.

Having followed the Boston marathon and MIT shooting coverage initially, I lost some interest when it came down to the “hunt.” As much as justice matters to me, so does tact and class, and the sensationalism of manhunts always leaves me uncomfortable. I also knew it would be a matter of time before the political rhetoric would change from the victims and wounded to the demographic factors of the suspects—namely race and religion. And alas, it has.

However, what struck me most about this image posted above was the Facebook page it came from, “Too Informed to Vote Republican.” I wondered about this, recalling an old journal article I’d come across when studying anti-Islamic attitudes post 9/11. The paper referenced a correlation between conservatism and low intelligence. Uncertain of its origin, I located a thought-provoking article published in one of psychology’s top journals, Psychological Science, which in essence confirms this.

Hodson and Busseri (2012) found in a correlational study that lower intelligence in childhood is predictive of greater racism in adulthood, with this effect being mediated (partially explained) through conservative ideology. They also found poor abstract reasoning skills were related to homophobic attitudes which was mediated through authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact.

What this study and those before it suggest is not necessarily that all liberals are geniuses and all conservatives are ignorant. Rather, it makes conclusions based off of averages of groups. The idea is that for those who lack a cognitive ability to grasp complexities of our world, strict-right wing ideologies may be more appealing. Dr. Brian Nosek explained it for the Huffington Post as follows, “ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simple solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.” For an excellent continuation of this discussion and past studies, please see this article from LiveScience (link is external).


Further, studies have indicated an automatic association between aggression, America, and the news. A study conducted by researchers at Cornell and The Hebrew University (Ferguson & Hassin, 2007) indicated, “American news watchers who were subtly or nonconsciously primed with American cues exhibited greater accessibility of aggression and war constructs in memory, judged an ambiguously aggressive person in a more aggressive and negative manner, and acted in a relatively more aggressive manner toward an experimenter following a mild provocation, compared with news watchers who were not primed” (p. 1642). American “cues” refers to factors such as images of the American flag or words such as “patriot.” Interestingly, this study showed this effect to be independent of political affiliation, but suggested a disturbing notion that America is implicitly associated with aggression for news watchers.

Taken together, what do these studies suggest? Excessive exposure to news coverage could be toxic as is avoidance of open-minded attitudes and ideals. Perhaps turn off the television and pick up a book? Ideally one that exposes you to differing worldviews.​

What utter tripe. One thing these "studies" never answer is the question of why liberals often grow out of their mindless liberalism and embrace conservatism. They also ignore the strict, controlled left-wing ideology that not only does NOT allow for complexity or open-mindedness, but damages moral intuition. Plus the extrapolation that racism is correlated with conservatism is totally laughable, as is the "homophobic" reference. Obviously an agenda there!

The only legitimate line in there is "Excessive exposure to news coverage could be toxic as is avoidance of open-minded attitudes and ideals. Perhaps turn off the television and pick up a book? Ideally one that exposes you to differing worldviews", which of course would be a better recommendation for liberals than conservatives, as they are the most ignorant of differing worldviews.

 

[brewmama]

A much more thoughtful and accurate picture is found here:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/06/our-one-eyed-friends . A great article.

"When he was a young graduate student, Jonathan Haidt presumed that “liberal” was pretty much a synonym for “reasonable,” if not for “obvious.” Now, as he writes in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion , he has found that liberals have limited moral vision. One that is, I’d say, therefore certainly less reasonable than conservatism’s, and for the vast majority of people in the world far from obvious...
This subculture, the liberal subculture that formed Haidt in his childhood and throughout most of his education, produces people like the Penn undergraduates who say that it’s alright to have sex with chickens as long as nobody is harmed. They are statistically weird, “outliers,” as social scientists say. Unlike the vast majority of humanity, they’ve been socialized to disregard their emotional responses when faced with offenses to loyalty, authority, and sanctity. They’re blinded in the moral eye that sees the social valences of moral situations...

It’s this difference in the scope of moral concerns that underlies the deep and bitter divisions running through American public life. People who respond so differently to reality can’t argue and debate. Too much separates them, and politics does indeed become a culture war by other means.

But Haidt does not level blame equally, which is why The Righteous Mind has important political implications. Because conservatives see out of both eyes, they see that contemporary liberalism, however misguided, is engaged in a morally serious response to contemporary reality. Conservatives are also concerned about care, freedom, and fairness, and this allows them to debate with liberals about how best to respond to poverty, for example, and to recognize the dangers posed to our civil liberties. However, seeing with only one eye, liberals can’t see that conservatives and their concerns about loyalty, authority, and sanctity are morally serious...
They are, in fact, often actively hostile. Haidt reports, “When I speak to liberal audiences about the three ‘binding foundations’”Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity”I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral.”

Struck by these aggressive, angry responses, he designed a study to test how liberals view conservatives as compared to how conservatives view liberals. Liberals were to answer questions as they imagined a conservative would, while conservatives did the opposite. The results? Liberals, especially those who described themselves as very liberal, couldn’t accurately depict conservative views, while conservatives could describe liberal views."

 

[PureX]

Also from Psychology Today
Interesting that the findings aren't consistent in different countries. Also interesting that when you look at specific issues in the US, libertarians have higher IQ's.

I'm not surprised about the different countries. It makes sense that the cultural labels and memes would be somewhat different in different countries; changing the summations. However, I very much doubt that the overall pattern is different. Meaning that people with an aversion to complexity (caused by a lack of cognitive ability, either voluntary or involuntary) will tend to be attracted to overly-simplistic, absolutist ideology.

But I think what's more important to understand, here, is that this isn't necessarily about "I.Q.". An intelligent person can still be weak in cognitive ability due to poor diet, lack of effective education, and/or bad personal habits like substance abuse or intellectual laziness. Just because a person's mind CAN handle complexity does't mean the person DOES so.

 

[PureX]

One thing these "studies" never answer is the question of why liberals often grow out of their mindless liberalism and embrace conservatism.

Because that doesn't really happen. What happens is that as people age, and acquire more wealth and power in life, they become more conservative. Because the definition of a conservative is the desire to 'conserve the status quo'. Which is why the wealthy and powerful are almost always conservatives: they want to maintain (conserve) their positions of wealth and power.

Incidentally, this is also why it's often irrational for poor people, and people with little power in a society, to become conservative. Which is why it's usually only the weaker-willed and less intelligent among them that are drawn to conservative ideology.

 

[PureX]

A much more thoughtful and accurate picture is found here:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/06/our-one-eyed-friends . A great article.

"When he was a young graduate student, Jonathan Haidt presumed that “liberal” was pretty much a synonym for “reasonable,” if not for “obvious.” Now, as he writes in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion , he has found that liberals have limited moral vision. One that is, I’d say, therefore certainly less reasonable than conservatism’s, and for the vast majority of people in the world far from obvious...
This subculture, the liberal subculture that formed Haidt in his childhood and throughout most of his education, produces people like the Penn undergraduates who say that it’s alright to have sex with chickens as long as nobody is harmed. They are statistically weird, “outliers,” as social scientists say. Unlike the vast majority of humanity, they’ve been socialized to disregard their emotional responses when faced with offenses to loyalty, authority, and sanctity. They’re blinded in the moral eye that sees the social valences of moral situations...

It’s this difference in the scope of moral concerns that underlies the deep and bitter divisions running through American public life. People who respond so differently to reality can’t argue and debate. Too much separates them, and politics does indeed become a culture war by other means.

But Haidt does not level blame equally, which is why The Righteous Mind has important political implications. Because conservatives see out of both eyes, they see that contemporary liberalism, however misguided, is engaged in a morally serious response to contemporary reality. Conservatives are also concerned about care, freedom, and fairness, and this allows them to debate with liberals about how best to respond to poverty, for example, and to recognize the dangers posed to our civil liberties. However, seeing with only one eye, liberals can’t see that conservatives and their concerns about loyalty, authority, and sanctity are morally serious...
They are, in fact, often actively hostile. Haidt reports, “When I speak to liberal audiences about the three ‘binding foundations’”Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity”I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral.”

Struck by these aggressive, angry responses, he designed a study to test how liberals view conservatives as compared to how conservatives view liberals. Liberals were to answer questions as they imagined a conservative would, while conservatives did the opposite. The results? Liberals, especially those who described themselves as very liberal, couldn’t accurately depict conservative views, while conservatives could describe liberal views."

So a religionist favors religious thinking in an essay from a religious web site. So what?

This has nothing whatever to do with the subject of this thread. And the fact that this is all you can come up with as your 'rebuttal' only serves to bolster the original premise of the OP.

 

[Quetzal]

Because that doesn't really happen. What happens is that as people age, and acquire more wealth and power in life, they become more conservative. Because the definition of a conservative is the desire to 'conserve the status quo'. Which is why the wealthy and powerful are almost always conservatives: they want to maintain (conserve) their positions of wealth and power.

Incidentally, this is also why it's often irrational for poor people, and people with little power in a society, to become conservative. Which is why it's usually only the weaker-willed and less intelligent among them that are drawn to conservative ideology.

:up:

 

[brewmama]

So a religionist favors religious thinking in an essay from a religious web site. So what?

This has nothing whatever to do with the subject of this thread. And the fact that this is all you can come up with as your 'rebuttal' only serves to bolster the original premise of the OP.

In your dreams. You ignore the fact that it is a liberal that came up with it. A religious magazine merely reported on it. You don't pay attention to facts or details do you? And most likely didn't even read the article, which is apparantly over your head.

 

[brewmama]

Because that doesn't really happen. What happens is that as people age, and acquire more wealth and power in life, they become more conservative. Because the definition of a conservative is the desire to 'conserve the status quo'. Which is why the wealthy and powerful are almost always conservatives: they want to maintain (conserve) their positions of wealth and power.

Incidentally, this is also why it's often irrational for poor people, and people with little power in a society, to become conservative. Which is why it's usually only the weaker-willed and less intelligent among them that are drawn to conservative ideology.

This shows the extent of your self delusions. You have no idea who, when or why liberals become conservatives, but obviously for those who grow more conservative as the mature, it is wisdom that makes the difference, not to conserve wealth. And your ignorance about the wealthy and powerful (almost always conservatives!!:mock and conservatives being weaker-willed and less intelligent is so ridiculous and bigoted that it needs no rebuttal. Not to mention that you seem to have no idea what being conservative actually means. So carry on in your pathetic small, mean-spirited little world, so you can keep your arrogant and better-than-thou delusions intact.