Skip to main content

Liberals and their over-eagerness to be fair.  Case in point.  A diary entitled "Average Fox Viewers IQ is 80" was found to be satire.  But there is always a kernel of truth.  

The low I.Q, racists, paranoid, conservatives is not only close to the truth, IT IS THE TRUTH.  Check out the following links, then decide.

According to "Psychological Science" (reprint)
Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism -
http://www.vibe.com/...

A recent study study from Brock University in Ontario suggests that IQ and the way our brains our formed affects whether someone is conservative or liberal. The Huffington Post reports that the study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.

I.Q. is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic for debate among psychologists.

Theories include that people of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice. Less intelligent people are possibly drawn to conservative ideologies because such beliefs feature "structure and order," which make it easier to comprehend a complicated world. Many of these features can also lead to prejudice, one experts says.

Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, reached out to The Huffington Post and stated the following:

"Reality is complicated and messy, he wrote in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."

Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds | Psychology Today -
http://www.psychologytoday.com/....
What It Means
There is a big unknown underlying these findings. Supposing that the size of one's amygdala really does increase the likelihood of being a conservative. Is the size of the amygdala determined at birth, or does it perhaps increase with frightening childhood experiences, such as authoritarian parenting and corporal punishment?

Similarly, one might ask whether the gray matter difference is affected by exposure to educational challenge, social diversity, or childhood cognitive enrichment.

The born versus acquired perspective on political attitudes is important to psychologists. After all, if political proclivities are fixed at birth in terms of brain anatomy, there is little hope of change. Most of us would probably like to see a world in which political attitudes were less polarized, and more changeable, but that may be a pipe dream.

Meanwhile, the neuro-scientific fact of two very different political creatures helps clarify much of the political antics of modern democracies.

Most societies are divided into a party that wants change (the more liberal party) and one that is afraid of change (the conservatives). The liberal party is generally more intellectual and the conservative party is more anti-intellectual.

The conservative party is big on national defense and magnifies our perception of threat, whether of foreign aggressors, immigrants, terrorists, or invading ideologies like Communism. To a conservative, the world really is a frightening place.

Given that their brains are so different, it is hardly surprising that liberals and conservatives should spend so much time talking across each other and never achieving real dialog or consensus.

First thought, best thought.  Or, if the psychological study fits...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's not about fairness. It is about reality. (9+ / 0-)

    I don't mind snark about conservative stupidity. But snark shouldn't be confused with science. That is why we liberals have a claim to be smarter.

    •  I don't claim to be smarter, I am smarter. But (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andrew F Cockburn, a2nite, qofdisks

      what I really can't stand is the candy-ass attitude of 'some' liberals, especially in this instance.

      The question is always asked; What is wrong with those guys?  And now we know.  It wasn't just a gut feeling, through science, we now know what their effing problem is.  That is progress and not to be eagerly dismissed or profusely denied.

      •  JustBecause - how many people do you think (7+ / 0-)

        will stop voting for the GOP and start voting for the Dems if we call them stupid? The reason that most Dems in leadership positions are "candy-ass" is that they know the message you would favor is a political loser.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:21:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wouldn't expect politicians to call Republicans (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, qofdisks

          or any constituents stupid, however, in this instance I am referring to soft headed liberals that jumped full bore into dissing the original diary.  

          Not necessarily the kind of liberal I'd want in my fox hole.  And make no mistake about it.  America is still in a fight for the soul of this nation.

          •  Many of us a political junkies, most people simply (0+ / 0-)

            aren't that interested, doesn't make them any more or less than low information voters. Locally we are on the big campaign to educate folks about ACA. We are introducing them their local politicians, letting them know what exactly they do, how they can help them etc. This is not to get them interested in politics because most wouldn't be, but it is to educated them about the very basics so they can vote their best interests.

            PS good satire always has a kernel of truth in it.

            The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

            by cherie clark on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:14:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You are insulting the intelligence of those who... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronInSanDiego, Bill W

            ...stood up for integrity. And you felt the need to create a diary on the issue. Really?

            What pleases me the most about liberals is the fact that they like their partisanship fully backed with truth. I read some of those liberal comments that you so easily deride. Many of them cited actual studies about the effect of watching Faux News. Others cited actual studies on the differences between liberal and conservative brains.

            I'm thinking that this diary is pointless and engages in unnecessary ad hominem attacks.

        •  Not stupid, fearful. (0+ / 0-)
  •  I am not going to argue whether it is true or not (5+ / 0-)

    My question  is what exactly do you propose doing to these more fearful or ignorant or stupid people? What place do they have in your version of a progressive country? How do you treat people like that and Where do you stop on the arc of political positions? How about those who are actually identified as having an IQ below 100? Are they to be marginalized and spat on in public, maybe lose thier vote  (say)? I struggle myself with anger at some regressives but they are people who have a right to live and believe what they want without someone making up scientific excuses to maltreat them,

    Seriuosly I think this is dangerous territory similar to old scientific(?) categorizing about womens intelligence or blacks intelligence or that children lie about being sexually abused or other dearly held theories that allowed the believer to disparage, marginalize or lock-up another group with the support of scientists (again I question that). Do you know that they used to lock up women in insane asylums on thier husbands word that they did not love housework or cooking? If she wasn't feminine enough to love cleaning toilets she was considered mentally disturbed.

    Nope I do not like convenient categorizing. I know many intelligent and well educated people who are republicans.  Most of the time I recognize that it is a philosophical, hormonal, or emotional issue for them. Depends on your starting point. Is it like many republicans categorizing enemies into groups that can be marginalized or maltreated with a clear conscience because of thier defined inferiority. Bad road to go down.

    Republicans like to cling to the system works for them so they don't like change because of  the uncertainty. This is why so many elderly are so conservative. At thier time of life change could kill them. I believe my son is conservative because of my ex... he longs for tradition and stability. Even if the system is bad they at least know where they stand and who they can rely on.  Unless you have lived at the margins it is hard to understand the fear of change that might displace you and destroy any semblence of a stable life.

    So this study you cite does not impress me.  Change must prove itself to these people because for petes sake not every idea the left has come up with is a winner, many hurt as many as they helped. To me a liberal is willing to work thier ideas over , releasing those that are truly ludicrous and harmful, searching to find ways to improve life for more. Republicans will follow if the ideas work... sometimes even leading. Right now the republicans are being tugged around by the most fear driven insane... That is the old white folks who see it as the end of the world to lose thier privilege and preference based on being white. They don't believe it will be better and ridiculing anyone does not change them.

    Fear is the Mind Killer...

    by boophus on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:34:06 PM PST

    •  It matters not whether you or I accept or don't (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, blueoasis, Tom Anderson, qofdisks

      accept the studies.  What matters is that the science exists and it should be shared with those conservatives.  I believe that once they are confronted with the differences between a liberal and a conservative that they themselves will be relieved.  

      Put yourself in a conservatives shoes.  He has been told that President Barack Hussein Obama was not born in the United States.  Not only not constitutionally eligible to hold office, but Obama is also a socialist, sent to destroy our beloved America.  Yet he was reelected by an electoral landslide. "It must be that black power group called Acorn that stole it for him, just like the last time". But all along was told that Romney has this in the bag.  Has to, right?  All that money.

      Woe is the conservative who is living with those facts listed above.  Woe plus the shame of being led on by ministers-of truth channel, Fox News.

      Scientific studies from reputable sources gives that woeful conservative a chance to climb out of the yellow submarine for possibly their first time.  Their first time to question everything, including the fact that the communist/socialist/Marxist may indeed be democratic with a small d, who really loves this country and her people.

      If this study does nothing but put a pause in Pavlovian diet that most right-wing extremists intake, then that alone is worth printing and having a discussion about our fellow Americans - no matter how misguided they may be.

      •  There are also studies showing the liberal (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, qofdisks

        brain is different from the conservative brain. Liberals deal with change and uncertainty better and are better critical thinkers able to work thru complex issues and contradictory information. Conservatives not so much, they are fearful of uncertainty and anything that fails to make sense on the surface, easy answers and explanations work best. Now when you think about it, that science is lived out every day in this country in politics.

        The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

        by cherie clark on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:19:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Science also proved that whites are smarter than (0+ / 0-)

        Blacks... Until someone bothered to notice the cultural bias in those studies and tests. And yes, that included IQ tests, which remain biased across not just race but specifically class.

        I wonder what's the background of the low IQ kids vs the high IQ kids. I have a feeling you may see different cultural factors at work, like socioeconomic status, whether the family is intact, whether the family is stable in the community (vs being bounced from apartment to apartment city to city as the parent(s) strive to hold a job).

        IQ testing is very limited in its usefulness. What it does reasonably well is predict success within the dominant culture.  But in a vacuum, it tells us little about the individual -- despite what MENSA thinks.

        So at best, all this study tells me is that maybe there's a correlation between kids (who grow up to be adults) who have had insecure upbringings and their desire for stability and rules; and  kids (who grow up to be adults) who have more benefits of a stable upbringings and grow up to be adults who eschew authority; and the overall political leanings of these adults.

        Ok, if that's true (and I'm not conceding that it is) then shouldn't we be fighting with all our might to ensure that kids get everything they need to grow up go be stable adults? And I don't mean just politically; I mean, isn't this our moral duty? Why are we buying new phones, lattes, or new software or games? Why aren't you demanding we give money to food banks, donate educational games to Boys and Girls Clubs, volunteer, become a Big Brother or Big Sister, coach a soccer team in an urban area, etc?

        The very intelligence of children depends on their being healthy and well fed (this is well established). You claim this affects how they perceive the world the rest of their lives.

        Instead of writing snarky "we're better than them" diaries, why aren't you writing action diaries about how we should be changing the trajectory of the next generation and therefore, starting to change the face of America forever?

        Or is it that THE TRUTH is a little more complicated than being self-congratulatory with how bright you are because you were lucky that you were born into the right family and did nothing to deserve it?

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:17:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Experimental design in these studies (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, AaronInSanDiego, grover, gramofsam1

    is more than highly problematic. How does one select one's test subjects, how does one screen for prejudiced people, and how does one select the factors used to normalize the data? Who screens the subjects for their prejudices, who selects the screeners, who pens the screening tools, how do the principal investigators attempt to control the entire process to launder/blind their own political prejudices, what result would they accept as demonstrating their hypothesis as false, on and on and on I could go.

    Without such controls and design elements, their studies are crap, no matter how tempting their conclusions to people like me who feel an almost species-level difference between myself and right-wingers; and I mean crap on par with the 19th century studies proving that ladies should not worry their pretty little heads about Man Things because it might harm their childbearing and mothering capacities.

    And don't get me started on the top-to-bottom bullshit in that Psychology Today excerpt, which has as much journalistic integrity as the ruminations of, say, Joe Scarborough.

    You are irked by liberals over-eager to be fair. I am irked by anti-scientific diarists who, over-eager to bash liberals in the same sentence as conservatives, seize on pseudoscience from vibe.com, Huffpo, and Psychology Today as though it's gospel.

    Gah!!! :P

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:51:43 PM PST

    •  Have you actually read the article (4+ / 0-)

      in Psychological Science and the supplemental material online? If so, perhaps you could be more specific about what is wrong with the ways of assessing prejudice, ensuring 'blind' data handling, etc. that they actually used. If not, this response seems unfair.

      •  Point taken. Hodson's is a 2012 study behind (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego

        a $35 paywall. Previous British and U.S. studies were not (I'll have to hunt back thru my 2011 and early 2012 DK comments to find that material) and I tossed him in with them and their sloppy methodologies.

        YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

        by raincrow on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:47:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Psychology is a science - an intellectual (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      qofdisks

      indulgence.  If you are against science that would make you an anti-intellectual, therefore, you can be categorized as a conservative.  Which is your right.

      By denying the available evidence that contradicts the way you feel about yourself and the world, at some point or another, you still have to deal with that tricky environment called reality.

      An example, the Romney campaign believed up until election night that they had a chance to win.  This campaign ignored 90% of other polling data and preferred their own.  Boom, election returns come in and one by one; MN, WI, MI called early for Obama, and then the death knell - OH.

      Up until Ohio, the factual evidence didn't matter to Romney's followers.  They could live in that anti-intellectual world until the facts came in, until reality rang the bell.

      One can choose to live in a world where the right-wing entertainment machine makes you feel like you are the sane one - until the factual evidence proves otherwise.

      The election results is a wake-up call for the Republicans and how they view facts, how they view the real world.  These scientific studies bear that out as well:  conservatives fear change and expect the worse - liberals anticipate change and hope for the best.  

  •  My sig-line says it all ..... nt (0+ / 0-)

    "Proud to proclaim: I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal"

    by sara seattle on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:26:51 PM PST

  •  very disappointing (0+ / 0-)

    to see even psychology today misspell "dialogue."  bill gates needs to be slapped hard for that one.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 05:37:10 AM PST

  •  I'm leery of accepting science, especially "neuro (0+ / 0-)

    science" that reaches broad social conclusions and reinforces prior stereotypes. Best to wait a while and see what other scientists find. Rmember, there was once a science of phrenology.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site