New Study Finds Stupid Breeds Right Wing Thinking, Which Breeds More Stupid

[vel]

• Tweet

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

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.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. 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. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.

Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]

"The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists."

Brains and bias

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]

In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

A study of averages

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said.

Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally.

"We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap."

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.

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

In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

Simple viewpoints

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek 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.

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.

"There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.

[DougRich]

What may be the single most important paragraph in the article:

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.

Many political Conservatives, and even quite a few social Conservatives, get a bad rap when it comes to being labeled "racists" or "homophobes". It's sometimes tempting and convenient to apply those labels to individuals and groups - and, in truth, those labels sometimes fit quite well - but to equate Conservatism as an ideology with genuine racism is unfair and intellectually lazy, in my opinion.

Is it fair to conclude from the study that people who are truly racists or homophobes tend to be stupider than those who are not? Certainly, and I have no problem accepting that conclusion. Is being a racist and/or a homophobe a qualification for being either a social or political Conservative? I don't think so. Is a study like this any sort of indictment of, or argument against, traditionally Conservative views on topics such as limited government or fiscal responsibility? Of course not; the issues arising from those principles need to be argued on their own merits and individually - not on the basis of a study that calls into queston the intelligence of "the other side".

Do Conservative movements and causes draw a lot of racists and others with extreme and unsavory views? No question. However, it doesn't exactly take a ton of research to discover and understand that Liberal movements and causes do, too.

[Observer]

Good post, Doug.

[IM2]

Causes are different from leadership and platforms being put forth as agendas. The liberal platform is more inclusive, while the conservative platform is not. The leadership of boths sides exemplify this as well. Sure there are individuals of both sides who are racists, but very little damage can be done by 3-4 whites running around yelling racial slurs.

However when 435 have the power to reinforce their racism by making it law there is a problem.

[DougRich]

Causes are different from leadership and platforms being put forth as agendas. The liberal platform is more inclusive, while the conservative platform is not. The leadership of boths sides exemplify this as well. Sure there are individuals of both sides who are racists, but very little damage can be done by 3-4 whites running around yelling racial slurs.

However when 435 have the power to reinforce their racism by making it law there is a problem.

What specific law or laws did you have in mind?

[IM2]

Law such as those going around state by state  making people show 2-3 IDs to vote.

[DougRich]

Law such as those going around state by state  making people show 2-3 IDs to vote.

I'm sure you're prepared for the next logical question, so I'll ask it. What is racist about requiring everybody to show ID in order to vote? Is requiring ID to cash a check, or open a bank account, or fly on a commerical airliner racist, too? What is the difference, in terms of racist versus non-racist intent?

[vel]

Many political Conservatives, and even quite a few social Conservatives, get a bad rap when it comes to being labeled "racists" or "homophobes". It's sometimes tempting and convenient to apply those labels to individuals and groups - and, in truth, those labels sometimes fit quite well - but to equate Conservatism as an ideology with genuine racism is unfair and intellectually lazy, in my opinion.

Come on, Doug. Someone like Obsurder, who is not doubt an extremist, is not racist. However he is not above appealing to racism in a subtle and ambiguous way as a political means. Have you ever heard Obsurder, or any "conservative" even own up to the Southern strategy, let alone condemn it?

It is more than just tempting and convenient to accuse the right of racism. It is also accurate, unless you're ready to buy into their denial the Southern strategy, or to the lurking appeal to racism in a lot of the anti-Obama treachery that mopes like Obsurder buy into.

Or how about their whole notion of victimhood over things like political correctness or affirmative action? You know, the "angry white male" and all of that? Are you really ready to parse the racism out of that?

Is it fair to conclude from the study that people who are truly racists or homophobes tend to be stupider than those who are not? Certainly, and I have no problem accepting that conclusion. Is being a racist and/or a homophobe a qualification for being either a social or political Conservative? I don't think so.

Again, how do you separate the wheat from the chaff? If racism and homophobia are woven into their fabric, and I believe that to be the case, then how do you come to claim that the fabric is clean and pure?

Is a study like this any sort of indictment of, or argument against, traditionally Conservative views on topics such as limited government or fiscal responsibility?

Except that's their trick. There is always a grain of truth added to their lies. Yes, there is validity in the idea of limited government. Fiscal responsibility is also a good idea, generally speaking. So tell me which "conservative" has actually effected limited government? Where is the fiscal responsibility in "supply-side economics"?

Reagan and Bush grew the government. "Supply-side economics" is not even a legitimate school of economic thought.

Of course not; the issues arising from those principles need to be argued on their own merits and individually - not on the basis of a study that calls into queston the intelligence of "the other side".

That would be great, but I don't see them arguing on the merits. Take Obsurder here, who declares himself to be a Constitutional scholar even though he has no education and absolutely no credentials. That's how he is. He decrees it, and so it must be true and everyone is an idiot.

Where are the merits of that?

Do Conservative movements and causes draw a lot of racists and others with extreme and unsavory views? No question. However, it doesn't exactly take a ton of research to discover and understand that Liberal movements and causes do, too.

Sorry, but that's just a false equivalency. The extremists have hijacked the "conservative" movement. I can show you any number of racist comments from a Rush Limbaugh, but you can't give me any real equivalence on the left. There is no Democratic equivalence to the Southern strategy. There is no Democratic equivalence to birthers.

Sure there are some unsavory leftists. You might consider Holly to be a leftist, in her bizarre way and I can point you to some groups that I would definitely consider to be unsavory and downright stupid, but they aren't anywhere near the mainstream.

I do distinguish between "conservatives" and conservatism, and I have addressed that elsewhere. "Conservatism" is a radical, extreme, and reckless movement and you cannot deny that it has wreaked havoc on us when it has had the opportunity.

[Case_Closed]

I'm sure you're prepared for the next logical question, so I'll ask it. What is racist about requiring everybody to show ID in order to vote? Is requiring ID to cash a check, or open a bank account, or fly on a commerical airliner racist, too? What is the difference, in terms of racist versus non-racist intent?

Dying to hear the response to this chestnut.

[vel]

I'm sure you're prepared for the next logical question, so I'll ask it. What is racist about requiring everybody to show ID in order to vote? Is requiring ID to cash a check, or open a bank account, or fly on a commerical airliner racist, too? What is the difference, in terms of racist versus non-racist intent?

It isn't so much about whether or not it's racist, but rather whether or not it is a strategy designed to suppress votes. There is some strong evidence that is exactly what it is.

Do you like the idea of voter suppression?

[Case_Closed]

Do you like the idea of voter suppression?

A lot less than voter fraud.

[vel]

A lot less than voter fraud.

You talk a lot about voter fraud but you never seem to actually find any.

[Case_Closed]

You talk a lot about voter fraud but you never seem to actually find any.

We'll find even less when the ni -- I mean disadvantaged voters start producing identification.

[IM2]

The voter fraud argument has no merit.

[Case_Closed]

The voter fraud argument has no merit.

That's it?  Are you done with the response?  "It has no merit?"

Seriously?