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.

Google is your friend:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract

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.

IQ is meaningless as a measure of a person's worth, which is what some people try to use it for. It is a good measure of specific types of knowledge. Many of us high IQ liberals take press releases with a grain of salt.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you read the article, they point out the flaw in the study. They only tested for simplistic views that are more likely to be held by social conservatives (note that it is social conservatives, not economic conservatives). They note that, if they had tested for overly simplistic views held by liberals, they would have probably achieved the opposite result. They also conflate racism and sexism and "conservatism." (I know someone will now say that "they are the same," which will prove my point about overly simplistic views held by liberals. In fact, the whole study proves this point.). The real title of the article should be "racists have lower iq" which I would totally buy.

I think the climate study poster was making a joke.

Lol!!

Anonymous wrote:Are they the same scientists who fqaked climate studies?

Without taking a position on the original premise of this thread, I will say that this post demonstrates why some people might suspect that there is a link between conservative views and low intelligence. The belief that climate studies have been faked is not supported by fact. Yet, I am sure no amount of supporting evidence will convince you that the studies have not been faked. This willingness to place tremendous faith in politically convenient, yet factually bankrupt, ideas does little to suggest high intelligence on behalf of the holders of such thoughts.

Are they the same scientists who fqaked climate studies?

I'd have to say that there are unintelligent liberals and conservatives. There seems to me to be a correlation between those who accept every political headline as fact and lower intelligence. The more intelligent people I know aren't as swayed by political commentators and take the time to try to understand it all and come to their own conclusion.

There was an old friend who found me on Facebook. Her favorite shows were listed as Glenn Beck and some other Fox talking head. It wasn't a shock when she and her husband started spewing racial slurs. I say that because there is a lot of opinion and little fact in her favorite shows. They seemed to accept it all as fact. I have known liberals that do the same (minus the racial slurs).

"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."

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

I am a liberal.

I think that it makes sense that low IQ people would be more politically conservative. Inherent in the idea of conservatism is a resistance to change or the unexpected. A low IQ person would have many reasons to fear change, because a predictable world is a safer world.

But you cannot say that because low IQ people are more often conservative, that therefore conservatives are low IQ or somehow the perspective is inherently unintelligent. Smart people can be conservative for entirely different reasons.

If someone demonstrated that criminals are more often democrats, that would not invalidate the liberal point of view, would it?

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html