Scientists find link between low IQ and conservative views .... discuss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the climate data was faked, however there are ways to manipulate data that are still not ethical and hiding data that contradicts a certain belief is also ethically wrong, but common practice in science because journals don't typically publish negative results..

That being said I think there is a fatal flaw in this study as well. How many conservatives are also from a low socioeconomic class? Because IQ strongly correlates to socioeconomic class more than anything else. So you'd have to control for that by matching subjects from similar income brackets. Otherwise the results mean nothing.

They almost certainly controlled for SES. I didn't read the study, but it is so basic that it could not be missed. BTW they do not have to do matching in order to control for it. They just add SES as a variable in the model.

If you look at the article no research study was cited, so there is nothing to evaluate. The research might not even be peer reviewed yet which is what happens when the news gets a hold of the results first.

Many of us low-IQ conservatives at least know enough to distrust science by press release. It is striking to me, however, that liberal political views tend to correlate with the view that IQ is meaningless---until a study using IQ as a metric confirms their prejudices. You really need to pick one or the other, is IQ a meaningful proxy for intelligence, or isn't it? Either view is principled, but you can't have both.

Apparently you are also unable to type "gordon hodson brock university" into that little box at the top of your browser.

[Anonymous]

There isn't enough information here to evaluate the quality of the studies, but the abstract tells us that they were performed on "two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets". The US and the UK are so different in politics, in matters of social class, and in the effect of social class on IQ (probably not on intelligence) that the results aren't applicable to the US. We have other issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the climate data was faked, however there are ways to manipulate data that are still not ethical and hiding data that contradicts a certain belief is also ethically wrong, but common practice in science because journals don't typically publish negative results..

That being said I think there is a fatal flaw in this study as well. How many conservatives are also from a low socioeconomic class? Because IQ strongly correlates to socioeconomic class more than anything else. So you'd have to control for that by matching subjects from similar income brackets. Otherwise the results mean nothing.

They almost certainly controlled for SES. I didn't read the study, but it is so basic that it could not be missed. BTW they do not have to do matching in order to control for it. They just add SES as a variable in the model.

If you look at the article no research study was cited, so there is nothing to evaluate. The research might not even be peer reviewed yet which is what happens when the news gets a hold of the results first.

Many of us low-IQ conservatives at least know enough to distrust science by press release. It is striking to me, however, that liberal political views tend to correlate with the view that IQ is meaningless---until a study using IQ as a metric confirms their prejudices. You really need to pick one or the other, is IQ a meaningful proxy for intelligence, or isn't it? Either view is principled, but you can't have both.

Good points. As a liberal, I would argue that "stupidity" and "IQ" are not directly related. I would define "stupidity" as "generally incurious intellectually lazy". One can have a high IQ and still meet that criteria. George W Bush (I will remind y'all that he was the conservative's previous president, since you seem to have forgotten about him) was the poster boy for this kind of syndrome.

[Anonymous]

Another liberal here. I never thought GWB was "stupid", I thought that he might have what we would now call a language-related learning disability. I thought he made many wrong decisions, but Cheney, though vice president, was also responsible, and no one ever thought him stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There isn't enough information here to evaluate the quality of the studies, but the abstract tells us that they were performed on "two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets". The US and the UK are so different in politics, in matters of social class, and in the effect of social class on IQ (probably not on intelligence) that the results aren't applicable to the US. We have other issues.

You are so quick to dismiss that you did not read the mention about a US data set.

Further, social class is a variable that can be controlled, so I'm not sure how it is relevant that social class is different. You are making the assumption that social class is a mediating variable but they did not highlight this result so it is really unlikely that it is the driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are so quick to dismiss that you did not read the mention about a US data set.

The US data set is said to have "confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice". Nothing there about conservative political opinions. You are making some assumptions here, as you are about the effect of social class on political position. I doubt that the English working class or its immigrants from the former colonies have abandoned the Labor party. I don't know that to be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are so quick to dismiss that you did not read the mention about a US data set.

The US data set is said to have "confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice". Nothing there about conservative political opinions. You are making some assumptions here, as you are about the effect of social class on political position. I doubt that the English working class or its immigrants from the former colonies have abandoned the Labor party. I don't know that to be the case.

No, I think you are unaware that conservatism is a political And socialphilosophy that endeavors to maintain traditional institutions. that includes views on homosexuality. That is not to say that all conservatives believe this, but it is part of the package, as evidenced by the candidates for president.

[Anonymous]

If you read the entire study you can see how SES is ruled out.

[Anonymous]

Remember the 99% of America is represented by the guests on the Jerry Springer Show. 'Nuf Said...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are so quick to dismiss that you did not read the mention about a US data set.

The US data set is said to have "confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice". Nothing there about conservative political opinions. You are making some assumptions here, as you are about the effect of social class on political position. I doubt that the English working class or its immigrants from the former colonies have abandoned the Labor party. I don't know that to be the case.

No, I think you are unaware that conservatism is a political And socialphilosophy that endeavors to maintain traditional institutions. that includes views on homosexuality. That is not to say that all conservatives believe this, but it is part of the package, as evidenced by the candidates for president.

Are you saying that being anti-gay equals being socially conservative? Those two things may overlap at times, but it's a HUGE leap to say that the findings based on the US data set are anywhere close to even suggesting what the title of this post asserts. Are you by chance a closet conservative, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are so quick to dismiss that you did not read the mention about a US data set.

The US data set is said to have "confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice". Nothing there about conservative political opinions. You are making some assumptions here, as you are about the effect of social class on political position. I doubt that the English working class or its immigrants from the former colonies have abandoned the Labor party. I don't know that to be the case.

No, I think you are unaware that conservatism is a political And socialphilosophy that endeavors to maintain traditional institutions. that includes views on homosexuality. That is not to say that all conservatives believe this, but it is part of the package, as evidenced by the candidates for president.

Are you saying that being anti-gay equals being socially conservative? Those two things may overlap at times, but it's a HUGE leap to say that the findings based on the US data set are anywhere close to even suggesting what the title of this post asserts. Are you by chance a closet conservative, PP?

No I am liberal, and mine is the first response to the op if you want to see what i think about the conclusions.

But I find your argument weak. You obviously don't like the conclusion, you declare the data not relevant without reading the study, certain that social class has not been accounted for. When in fact if read the whole paper, you will realize this is false.

[Anonymous]

Here, as an example, read this chart and see what I mean. SES (socio-economic status) is 100x less powerful than the g score for intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


But I find your argument weak. You obviously don't like the conclusion, you declare the data not relevant without reading the study, certain that social class has not been accounted for. When in fact if read the whole paper, you will realize this is false.

You are responding to the wrong post, or wrong poster, because you made an erroneous assumption about who posted what. It's easy to do.

As for me, it's not that I don't like the conclusion, it's that I don't like extrapolating from a study in the UK to the quite different political and social conditions in the US; I wouldn't like it even if I thought the study reliable. It's just the popular press overreacting again.

[Anonymous]

I like charts but they are mentally taxing. Can you explain it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


But I find your argument weak. You obviously don't like the conclusion, you declare the data not relevant without reading the study, certain that social class has not been accounted for. When in fact if read the whole paper, you will realize this is false.

You are responding to the wrong post, or wrong poster, because you made an erroneous assumption about who posted what. It's easy to do.

As for me, it's not that I don't like the conclusion, it's that I don't like extrapolating from a study in the UK to the quite different political and social conditions in the US; I wouldn't like it even if I thought the study reliable. It's just the popular press overreacting again.

Have you read the study yet? Did you see the type of questions they asked in order to determine conservatism?