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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.