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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like charts but they are mentally taxing. Can you explain it

The numbers on each of the arrows are path coefficients. A big positive number means there is a strong relationship between the two boxes connected by the arrow. A big negative number means there is a big negative relationship. Small numbers indicate a less powerful relationship.

Based on this graph, you can see that there is a strong inverse relationship between the intelligence score (g) at age 11 and conservatism. That means that the lower the g score, the more likely you are to be conservative later in life.

SES = socioeconomic status. They found only a very small relationship between socioeconomic status and conservatism. (If you blow up the graph you will notice there are decimal points on those numbers).

They also looked at parent's SES and education, and you can see those numbers as well.

[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.

This. I'm 00:10, and it was the first response I wrote to this post. But keep going on about scientific rigor and attention to detail, PP, it's very convincing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. I'm 00:10, and it was the first response I wrote to this post. But keep going on about scientific rigor and attention to detail, PP, it's very convincing

Wow, I set such a high standard. I asked whether you read the study that you dismissed. Oh, but you don't have to! The abstract tells you everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the climate study poster was making a joke.

Yes, I was. I'm actually a big liberal Dem. I'm a Unitarian, lifelong Dem voter, and an eco nazi. I keep bees, and am anti GMO and pesticide. I support gay marriage and have been unfriended by more than one Republican on FB because they find my liberalism offensive. Now I am serious. But I do find it funny that I got a rise out of Jeff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. I'm 00:10, and it was the first response I wrote to this post. But keep going on about scientific rigor and attention to detail, PP, it's very convincing

Wow, I set such a high standard. I asked whether you read the study that you dismissed. Oh, but you don't have to! The abstract tells you everything.

Actually no, you directed your questions at the PP whose argument you found weak. I think we've established that that was not, in fact, me. Perhaps you would do better at a site with usernames, PP? This seems to be difficult for you. FWIW I'm a liberal too, for the most part. I just think your extrapolations are illogical.

[Anonymous]

This is the rudest thing anyone has said on DCUM this month. This is not worthy of discussion.