http://aattp.org/multiple-scientific-studies-confirm-extreme-conservatism-linked-to-racism-and-low-i-q/

http://aattp.org/new-study-proves-reaganomics-supporters-are-dumb/

More than a few, actually.....

;)

Let's hope the research leads to a cure.

Bam wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 2:11pm:

Let's hope the research leads to a cure.

judging by some of those on here, I think a cure is beyond the realms of possibilities

These "studies" are littered with the morality (hence prejudice) of the authors. (Some of the studies in the link actually find similar numbers of stupid people in both camps). The problem with these "studies" is that there is a tendency to conflate certain moral positions with abstract reasoning. They are not the same thing, and neither does being able to think abstractly automatically lead to the moral positions the authors favour.

I commented before on a "study" that was posted here several times and it had the same problem - the authors had already decided in advance what moral positions were superior. They then worked backwards from this point in order to justify their stance.

There was another recent study called the Rudd/Gillard government where the left were given free rein to show how smart they really were, this resulted in a large number of deaths and a crippling of the economy and had to be abandoned before the whole experiment imploded.

Then the Abbott govt came in and the economy DID implode and it was entirely their own work.

Bah, childish partisan crap!

There was a GFC. We could either have done nothing in which case one bank at least would have fallen over, unemployment would have exceeded 10% and the deficit would have headed rapidly to $1Trn. This happened in most other advanced economies.

Or you spend $40Bn in Keynesian spending and provided guarantees to bank borrowings and deposits. About $16bn of the $40bn came back to the govt sector as tax—income, GST, company and the bank guarantee earned money for the govt.

So the Rudd govt did exactly the right thing in 2008–10, apart from giving a tax cut in 2008.

The Gillard govt saw work on fiscal consolidation. The baby bonus went, the private health rebate got means tested and the PS faced a regular flow of efficiency dividends.

So why did the economy not recover like it did in 1996–7?

2001-7 were not recession years. They were years of real estate boom, borrow, spend, borrow again on increased house values. Howard and Costello encouraged people to borrow and spend and fed tax cuts and pork by the truckload into an overheated economy, did nothing to remove economic bottlenecks. Came 2008—suddenly house prices weren’t rising anymore and the talk was all doom and gloom.

This indebtedness of the private sector is one reason economic activity is sluggish. Because of this sluggishness businesses are going broke and “For Lease” signs are sprouting up everywhere.

There is $50Bn in tax expenditures that need to be cut. FBT and the Age Pension eligibility tests tightened up heaps. To improve revenue flows, the last 3 tax cuts on the top two brackets need to be reversed. That and only that will give a boost to government revenue and the Budget bottom line. Then boost NewStart by $100/week, the pensions by $50/week and suddenly there is substantial private sector spending. Strong action against tax dodging by huge companies will further improve the Budget bottom line.

Putting in a proper ETS, running out the real NBN and there will be hope for the future.

Sadly, the stupid, irresponsible shambles will keep doing the opposite of the above standard economic management.

Garfield. wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:30am:

There was another recent study called the Rudd/Gillard government where the left were given free rein to show how smart they really were, this resulted in a large number of deaths and a crippling of the economy and had to be abandoned before the whole experiment imploded.

Yes, I was thinking that as well.

I'll bet there is a friendly right wing publication that pours a bucket of slime over people who cleave to left ideas and ideals.

Gawd, I love the contributions of Saladin.


Quote:

"Progressives" Aren't Progressive   At my university I was sitting at one interminably long meeting where sadly much time is wasted and little gets done. But during one of the discussions the person who was the leader made the point that there are faculty members of different political persuasion (a piece of vital information we all needed to be provided) and divided them into two groups, conservative and progressive. By this was meant something simply descriptive and showing not kind of bias at all.   Sadly, many people even at universities and colleges, ones who ought to know better, accept some of these labels without question. Yet given how the labels derive from words that have pretty clear meaning in our language, what those words from which they derive mean has an influence in how the labels will be understood.   Thus, conservatism derives from the perfectly ordinary word "conserve." And this means to hold over, to stay the course, to avoid changes, at least basic ones. Conservatives, in fact, are generally taken to be those who promote forging laws and public policies by holding on to what had been the practice in the past. Those who actually embrace this method have a very interesting argument for why they promote this, nothing to dismiss blithely. So to label people "conservative" is to suggest, pretty strongly, that they want to keep with customs, laws, policies of the past. Yet one can bet that a whole lot of those called conservatives aren’t exactly like that at all. Many of them simply urge that we be careful when we make changes, not embrace some untried fad, not abandon something that has worked rather well even if not perfectly. But the label "conservative" does not include these necessary qualifications.   It is even worse with "progressive." It’s usually the people on the Left who joyfully choose to be called "progressive"—there are several left of center and far Left publications that contain "progressive" in their title, for example. In this instance, however, the designation fails to fit altogether. That is because instead of moving forward, getting away from past practices, in short, instead of making progress, those on the Left are actually regressive, even reactionary, in their politics. I give you one major example.   Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the fathers of the modern Left, proposed, in their Communist Manifesto, as their first order of business the abolition of private property. They and thousands of intellectuals who followed in their ideological lead over the last century and a half have believed, often sincerely, that this made them all progressives. But that is just not so.   In the era prior to the rise of modern capitalism there was virtually no acknowledgement of the right to private property for all but some at the top. It is government—by way of the monarch such as the king or czar or pharaoh—who was deemed to own everything. So when ordinary folks like you and me occupied and worked some plot of land, for example, the government had to grant this privilege. We had no right to private property, only a grant of privilege and we all had to pay taxes for it to boot. (Remember that Robin Hood didn’t steal from the rich but from those who took taxes from us all, seeing how unjust this was!)   Clearly, then, the rejection of private property rights was part and parcel of much of pre-capitalist political economy, where it was government that deemed itself authorized to grant people rights. The idea that the individual has a natural—pre-political, pre-legal—right to private property was a radical, actually progressive notion which unseated government from its high and might position, robbed it of its phony sovereignty. Etc. http://solohq.org/Articles/Machan/Progressives_Arent_Progressive.shtml

Seems like progressive roos have found their way into the paddocks of alleged progressives. (progressive = left).

Any Marxist Leninists here? Didn’t think so.

Progressives want to overturn outdated laws, practices etc. Monarchy, laws favoring vested interests, actions that harm the environment and so on.

The Abbott govt is not conservative so I fail to see the point of the OP.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 12:52am:

These "studies" are littered with the morality (hence prejudice) of the authors. (Some of the studies in the link actually find similar numbers of stupid people in both camps). The problem with these "studies" is that there is a tendency to conflate certain moral positions with abstract reasoning. They are not the same thing, and neither does being able to think abstractly automatically lead to the moral positions the authors favour.

Oo! Scare quotes!

Did you read the links? Or did you post this garbage without bothering?


Quote:

I commented before on a "study" that was posted here several times and it had the same problem - the authors had already decided in advance what moral positions were superior. They then worked backwards from this point in order to justify their stance.

Yes, the climate change deniers have a lot of dubious methodologies. I hope you are adept at spotting them.

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 7:52am:

Any Marxist Leninists here? Didn’t think so.

Are you serious? The place is crawling with them...when they drop the act and admit it.

Since they haven’t “dropped the act” how could you know this board is a nest of MLs?

salad in wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 7:47am:

Gawd, I love the contributions of Saladin.

I don't see why ...

only a fool would try to counter the result of multiple studies with an opinion piece, and think it was sufficient  :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 8:05am:

only a fool would try to counter the result of multiple studies with an opinion piece, and think it was sufficient  :D :D :D :D

You want more right wing opinions about progressives/left wingers? How many do you want?

Yes, please inform the debate Saladin.


Quote:

Why middle-class Lefties believe stupid things – because their friends do A new study of middle-aged Lefties may finally clear up one of life’s great mysteries – why are intelligent people more likely to believe idiotic things? As the Telegraph reports, “champagne socialists” are actually more conservative than they think: The study suggests that some people vote for left-of-centre parties “by mistake”, in ignorance of their actual political interests and sympathies. James Rockey, a lecturer in political economics at the University of Leicester who carried out the research, also found that well-educated people are most susceptible to misunderstanding their true position within the political spectrum. Etc. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100047245/why-middle-class-lefties-believe-stupid-things-because-their-friends-do/

The article suggests that left leaners can't even think for themselves; a herd mentality is their driving force.

Is there more Mr Saladin? Yes there is.


Quote:

Over the years I have listened to the Left Wingers in this country say some really outrageous things. Below are quotes from some of the nuttiest.    40) Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security. -- Obama foreign policy adviser Richard Danzig    39) I propose a limitation be put on how many sqares [sic] of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. -- Sheryl Crow    38) In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who's suffering. [But we must also think about] the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It's all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see [the terrorists] as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better. -- Richard Gere    37) George Bush doesn't care about black people...They're giving the Army permission to go down and shoot us. -- Kayne West on the rescue efforts in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina Etc. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/15/823172/-LEFT-WING-IDIOTS#

Winnie The Pooh remains as popular as ever.

Ease up there Saladin. I think I detect some tears starting to flow.

Tears of laughter, that you believe such crap.

Rightwhingers here get all their opinions from the DT!!!!!

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

Tears of laughter, that you believe such crap. Rightwhingers here get all their opinions from the DT!!!!!

And piers who gets owned the second he opens his mouth, and bolt and jones  :D the resident loonies.

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 7:52am:

Progressives want to overturn outdated laws, practices etc. Monarchy, laws favoring vested interests, actions that harm the environment and so on. .

And don't forget introduce sharia law. 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 12:52am:

These "studies" are littered with the morality (hence prejudice) of the authors. (Some of the studies in the link actually find similar numbers of stupid people in both camps). The problem with these "studies" is that there is a tendency to conflate certain moral positions with abstract reasoning. They are not the same thing, and neither does being able to think abstractly automatically lead to the moral positions the authors favour. I commented before on a "study" that was posted here several times and it had the same problem - the authors had already decided in advance what moral positions were superior. They then worked backwards from this point in order to justify their stance.

Sounds like that also applies to the learned prof from Leister above.... who has worked out in classical social science fashion that left-leaners are sheep... right .. left.. who cares - both are fixated in often unfounded ideas and need to work out how the world works.

Here is the4 quote from slad in' post:-

"Why middle-class Lefties believe stupid things – because their friends do

A new study of middle-aged Lefties may finally clear up one of life’s great mysteries – why are intelligent people more likely to believe idiotic things? As the Telegraph reports, “champagne socialists” are actually more conservative than they think:

The study suggests that some people vote for left-of-centre parties “by mistake”, in ignorance of their actual political interests and sympathies.

James Rockey, a lecturer in political economics at the University of Leicester who carried out the research, also found that well-educated people are most susceptible to misunderstanding their true position within the political spectrum."

Hey, Rockey...

salad in wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 9:10am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 8:05am: only a fool would try to counter the result of multiple studies with an opinion piece, and think it was sufficient  :D :D :D :D You want more right wing opinions about progressives/left wingers? How many do you want?

I don't want any opinions, especially from those that studies have found to be mentally challenged ;D ;D

Bam wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 7:59am:

Oo! Scare quotes! Did you read the links? Or did you post this garbage without bothering?

Indeed I did read them. Did you? If so, you'd see my point. Or is it you don't understand my point? Most probably.

Explain to me how engaging in abstract reasoning leads directly to the moral positions they espouse.




Quote:

Yes, the climate change deniers have a lot of dubious methodologies. I hope you are adept at spotting them.

I don't care much for the climate change issue. I don't recall seeing this mentioned in the links either.

John Smith wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 11:17am:

salad in wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 9:10am: John Smith wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 8:05am: only a fool would try to counter the result of multiple studies with an opinion piece, and think it was sufficient  :D :D :D :D You want more right wing opinions about progressives/left wingers? How many do you want? I don't want any opinions, especially from those that studies have found to be mentally challenged ;D ;D

Studies..... https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-L-Iohtm3eUk/UicuejETYSI/AAAAAAAAAxE/SHl7Dg7Bpcg/w151-h61-no/ROFLSmiley.gif .. in total scientific social scientist style.... http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/glitters/r/rofl-3329.gif

did you miss the OP grappler?

Why do they have studies about things most people just understand as basic common sense?

Dnarever wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

Why do they have studies about things most people just understand as basic common sense?

Care to debate the arguments in the links? Your lefty buddies have chickened out. Cowards.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:27pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 4:20pm: Why do they have studies about things most people just understand as basic common sense? Care to debate the arguments in the links? Your lefty buddies have chickened out. Cowards.

Not sure anyone chickened out, they probably just decided you weren't worth the bother.

Afterall, You didn't really write anything worth debating, apart from a few assumptions on your part and mention of something you said once upon a time ... thats hardly debating the arguments in the study now is it?

People do these studies because they can and because it offers some semi-valid integrity to some wacky prejudice.  What most people do not do is read the fine print and interpret the 'study' as it was performed, and thus they inevitably lead to never-ending stupid arguments that seek to suggest that on the basis of some 'scientific study' one group is sillier than another.

The truth is that those who even consider such nonsense are as silly as one another.

salad in wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

Yes, please inform the debate Saladin. Quote: Why middle-class Lefties believe stupid things – because their friends do A new study of middle-aged Lefties may finally clear up one of life’s great mysteries – why are intelligent people more likely to believe idiotic things? As the Telegraph reports, “champagne socialists” are actually more conservative than they think: The study suggests that some people vote for left-of-centre parties “by mistake”, in ignorance of their actual political interests and sympathies. James Rockey, a lecturer in political economics at the University of Leicester who carried out the research, also found that well-educated people are most susceptible to misunderstanding their true position within the political spectrum. Etc. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100047245/why-middle-class-lefties-believe-stupid-things-because-their-friends-do/ The article suggests that left leaners can't even think for themselves; a herd mentality is their driving force.

You mean something like believing a 3-word slogan delivers all the detail needed to make an informed decision??

:D

Stop the Bullshit!


Pass the Budget!


Shift-front A Russky!

No lies or changes!

Labor Did It!

Lobo wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 5:40pm:

You mean something like believing a 3-word slogan delivers all the detail needed to make an informed decision?? :D

You mean like "stop the boats"?  :-* ::)

I am sure conservatives would like to believe it isn’t correct.

You may recall that in someone’s signature block was the words to effect that not all conservatives are dumb but a significant amount of the dumb are conservatives.

Really it’s saying the same thing, making the same observation.

There is little doubt that a significant number of people always on about the race issue of the day be that boat people or Muslim’s today the perceived Vietnamese invasion of the 70’s  or back to the wogs and spicks of the 50’s and 60’s seem to come from similar pools in the community. These groups have always been dominated by conservative types.

These are the same people who really did find the need to check under their bed for reds every night.

There is really no doubt that a significant amount of the pool of people that these views appeal to the most are somewhat limited in ability.

The smarter people who also form similar views for different reasons tend to be dominated by strong “A” type personalities, people strongly driven – mostly in a straight line they also tend to have lower than average empathy indexes. You often see people like this very successful in business they tend to have a one track approach, they tend to appear to be clever in specific areas but not real smart in a general terms. These people seem to identify people who show empathy as putting it on for advantage – they have none them self and do not understand it or believe others are genuine about it. They often pretend the same way themselves when there is an advantage. Hence all the concern about people drowning last term but now a different story.

We see a few of these guys on here.

The vast majority of people who are not “A” type personalities and have a reasonable cognitive ability tend to reject the race based arguments.

Watch an episode of love thy neighbour – 70’s sitcom. That’s right Honkey was a driven conservative smack in the middle of this demographic. Part of the thing which makes it funny is that it is so true.

Ted Bullpitt anyone - right another bigoted conservative steriotype ????

salad in wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

Yes, please inform the debate Saladin. Quote: Why middle-class Lefties believe stupid things – because their friends do A new study of middle-aged Lefties may finally clear up one of life’s great mysteries – why are intelligent people more likely to believe idiotic things? As the Telegraph reports, “champagne socialists” are actually more conservative than they think: The study suggests that some people vote for left-of-centre parties “by mistake”, in ignorance of their actual political interests and sympathies. James Rockey, a lecturer in political economics at the University of Leicester who carried out the research, also found that well-educated people are most susceptible to misunderstanding their true position within the political spectrum. Etc. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100047245/why-middle-class-lefties-believe-stupid-things-because-their-friends-do/ The article suggests that left leaners can't even think for themselves; a herd mentality is their driving force.

Quote:

The central conclusion of the literature is arguably that those on the right are more anxious (Blair et al. (2003)), more sensitive to loud noises and ashing lights and pain (Oxley et al. (2008)). They are also found to be less curious about the world and new experiences (Carney et al. (2008), Settle et al. (2010)); less altruistic (Zettler and Hilbig (2010)); more responsive to threats (Vigil (2010)); less empathetic (Dodd et al. (2011)); and even less intelligent (Hodson and Busseri (2012)). This litany of negative correlates of being right-wing is perhaps troubling. Despite all of this, right-wingers are somehow happier (Napier and Jost (2008), Vigil (2010)).

and even less intelligent (Hodson and Busseri
(2012)

This is also in this same report - the UK telegraph didn't report that one though did they ?

Dnarever wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 7:30pm:

salad in wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 9:15am: Yes, please inform the debate Saladin. Quote: Why middle-class Lefties believe stupid things – because their friends do A new study of middle-aged Lefties may finally clear up one of life’s great mysteries – why are intelligent people more likely to believe idiotic things? As the Telegraph reports, “champagne socialists” are actually more conservative than they think: The study suggests that some people vote for left-of-centre parties “by mistake”, in ignorance of their actual political interests and sympathies. James Rockey, a lecturer in political economics at the University of Leicester who carried out the research, also found that well-educated people are most susceptible to misunderstanding their true position within the political spectrum. Etc. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100047245/why-middle-class-lefties-believe-stupid-things-because-their-friends-do/ The article suggests that left leaners can't even think for themselves; a herd mentality is their driving force. [quote]The central conclusion of the literature is arguably that those on the right are more anxious (Blair et al. (2003)), more sensitive to loud noises and ashing lights and pain (Oxley et al. (2008)). They are also found to be less curious about the world and new experiences (Carney et al. (2008), Settle et al. (2010)); less altruistic (Zettler and Hilbig (2010)); more responsive to threats (Vigil (2010)); less empathetic (Dodd et al. (2011)); and even less intelligent (Hodson and Busseri (2012)). This litany of negative correlates of being right-wing is perhaps troubling. Despite all of this, right-wingers are somehow happier (Napier and Jost (2008), Vigil (2010)).

and even less intelligent (Hodson and Busseri
(2012)

This is also in this same report - the UK telegraph didn't report that one though did they ?[/quote]

;)

salad in wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

Yes, please inform the debate Saladin. Quote: Why middle-class Lefties believe stupid things – because their friends do A new study of middle-aged Lefties may finally clear up one of life’s great mysteries – why are intelligent people more likely to believe idiotic things? As the Telegraph reports, “champagne socialists” are actually more conservative than they think: The study suggests that some people vote for left-of-centre parties “by mistake”, in ignorance of their actual political interests and sympathies. James Rockey, a lecturer in political economics at the University of Leicester who carried out the research, also found that well-educated people are most susceptible to misunderstanding their true position within the political spectrum. Etc. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100047245/why-middle-class-lefties-believe-stupid-things-because-their-friends-do/ The article suggests that left leaners can't even think for themselves; a herd mentality is their driving force.

You see above how the Telegraph state the result - below you can see how the actual study represented the same result - The difference is rather profound.


Quote:

Columns 1 & 2 suggest that conditioning on cohorts, those who are better educated still judge themselves as more leftwing than their policy preferences suggest. Similarly, the more affluent continue to judge themselves more right wing than implied by their policy preferences.

Does this line up a bit with someone like Clive Palmer who has spent his life as a profound right wing nutter but in parliament we find a lot of his political position is maybe not so drastic.

The only defence seems to be the conservative media reporting without any ethics.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:

The only defence seems to be the conservative media reporting without any ethics.

Apart from the fact that it is UK publication

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 5:49pm:

Stop the Bullshit! Pass the Budget! Shift-front A Russky! No lies or changes! Labor Did It!

Not the LNP!

Vote one Abbott!

Vote one LNP!

The Senates fault!

Its Labours fault!

Its Putin's fault!

Vic wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 4:07pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 2:23pm: The only defence seems to be the conservative media reporting without any ethics. Apart from the fact that it is UK publication

Sorry I had no idea there were no conservatives in the UK

John Smith wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:31pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 4:27pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 4:20pm: Why do they have studies about things most people just understand as basic common sense? Care to debate the arguments in the links? Your lefty buddies have chickened out. Cowards. Not sure anyone chickened out, they probably just decided you weren't worth the bother. Afterall, You didn't really write anything worth debating, apart from a few assumptions on your part and mention of something you said once upon a time ... thats hardly debating the arguments in the study now is it?

My first post mentions concepts taken directly from the articles in the op - abstract reasoning, prejudice, and morality. It's obvious you didn't read them.

Your posts themselves directly refute the claim that 'progressives' are more intelligent than conservatives.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 10:47pm:

My first post mentions concepts taken directly from the articles in the op - abstract reasoning, prejudice, and morality.

Your first comment mentions assumptions on your part and opinion. Here, I'll copy it below to refresh your memory

These "studies" are littered with the morality (hence prejudice) of the authors. (Some of the studies in the link actually find similar numbers of stupid people in both camps). The problem with these "studies" is that there is a tendency to conflate certain moral positions with abstract reasoning. They are not the same thing, and neither does being able to think abstractly automatically lead to the moral positions the authors favour.

I commented before on a "study" that was posted here several times and it had the same problem - the authors had already decided in advance what moral positions were superior. They then worked backwards from this point in order to justify their stance.


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 10:47pm:

Your posts themselves directly refute the claim that 'progressives' are more intelligent than conservatives

was that the claim? I'm not sure it was .... but thats OK, I can't blame you, according to the study your stupidity is hardwired into you.

John Smith wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 12:01am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 10:47pm: My first post mentions concepts taken directly from the articles in the op - abstract reasoning, prejudice, and morality. Your first comment mentions assumptions on your part and opinion. Here, I'll copy it below to refresh your memory These "studies" are littered with the morality (hence prejudice) of the authors. (Some of the studies in the link actually find similar numbers of stupid people in both camps). The problem with these "studies" is that there is a tendency to conflate certain moral positions with abstract reasoning. They are not the same thing, and neither does being able to think abstractly automatically lead to the moral positions the authors favour. I commented before on a "study" that was posted here several times and it had the same problem - the authors had already decided in advance what moral positions were superior. They then worked backwards from this point in order to justify their stance.

So what's the problem? The concepts I stated are taken directly from one of the "studies" in the link. From Hodsen and Busseri:


Quote:

Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

Where's the assumptions?

Is anyone trying to say that there is no correlation between low cognitive ability and racist, sexist, homophobic attitudes as well as discrimination in general ?

Does anyone contend that people with these traits do not tend to be attracted by conservative political views or that the conservatives do not cultivate and harvest this rich voter base ?

Dnarever wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:45pm:

Is anyone trying to say that there is no correlation between low cognitive ability and racist, sexist, homophobic attitudes as well as discrimination in general ? Does anyone contend that people with these traits do not tend to be attracted by conservative political views or that the conservatives do not cultivate and harvest this rich voter base ?

The articles throw up more questions than answers. Racism, sexism, and homophobia need to be defined. The authors do not elaborate on what racism or homophobia is. Is someone who is repulsed at a man playing with another man's arse homophobic? Probably so according to "progressives". However, I, and many others, just think it's a bit sick. So does that make us stupid?

Also, what is prejudice? How is prejudice defined by the authors? How do the authors step outside their own prejudices?

Additionally, how is abstract thinking or cognitive skills related to the morality favoured by the authors? There's no direct link between the two, and neither have the authors explained why the brain works, or should work, in a predetermined manner like this. What does playing with another bloke's arse or approving of it have to do with abstract thinking anyway?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:10pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 8:45pm: Is anyone trying to say that there is no correlation between low cognitive ability and racist, sexist, homophobic attitudes as well as discrimination in general ? Does anyone contend that people with these traits do not tend to be attracted by conservative political views or that the conservatives do not cultivate and harvest this rich voter base ? The articles throw up more questions than answers. Racism, sexism, and homophobia need to be defined. The authors do not elaborate on what racism or homophobia is. Is someone who is repulsed at a man playing with another man's arse homophobic? Probably so according to "progressives". However, I, and many others, just think it's a bit sick. So does that make us stupid? Also, what is prejudice? How is prejudice defined by the authors? How do the authors step outside their own prejudices? Additionally, how is abstract thinking or cognitive skills related to the morality favoured by the authors? There's no direct link between the two, and neither have the authors explained why the brain works, or should work, in a predetermined manner like this. What does playing with another bloke's arse or approving of it have to do with abstract thinking anyway?

The articles throw up more questions than answers. Racism, sexism, and homophobia need to be defined.

Think you will find all of them in all the dictionaries ?

Is someone who is repulsed at a man playing with another man's arse homophobic? Probably so according to "progressives". However, I, and many others, just think it's a bit sick.

Are you making an admission ?

I would think that by definition heterosexuals do not find it appealing, this does not make anyone homophobic, It is not acceptable to practice any type of sex in public and objections are understandable.

People who are homophobic seem to hate and discriminate against the people themselves based on their sexual orientation.

It is not related to being behind closed doors watching - that is something else - weird and perverted in a very different way.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:10pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 8:45pm: Is anyone trying to say that there is no correlation between low cognitive ability and racist, sexist, homophobic attitudes as well as discrimination in general ? Does anyone contend that people with these traits do not tend to be attracted by conservative political views or that the conservatives do not cultivate and harvest this rich voter base ? The articles throw up more questions than answers. Racism, sexism, and homophobia need to be defined. The authors do not elaborate on what racism or homophobia is. Is someone who is repulsed at a man playing with another man's arse homophobic? Probably so according to "progressives". However, I, and many others, just think it's a bit sick. So does that make us stupid? Also, what is prejudice? How is prejudice defined by the authors? How do the authors step outside their own prejudices? Additionally, how is abstract thinking or cognitive skills related to the morality favoured by the authors? There's no direct link between the two, and neither have the authors explained why the brain works, or should work, in a predetermined manner like this. What does playing with another bloke's arse or approving of it have to do with abstract thinking anyway?

What does playing with another bloke's arse or approving of it


Do you really believe that whatever is happening consensually in someone else's bedroom is any of anybody else's business ?

Do you really believe people should be discriminated against for this reason ?

Additionally, how is abstract thinking or cognitive skills related to the morality favoured by the authors

You add variables which do not exist in the study.

The study shows in a repeatable way that the same people who score low on cognitive ability when young score high on various forms of discrimination as they age. That is in comparative terms against others in the community.

Archie Bunker, Ted Bullpitt and Eddie Booth. All fit nicely into this demographic - we have been laughing about it for decades. There is nothing new here.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 10:14pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 9:10pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 8:45pm: Is anyone trying to say that there is no correlation between low cognitive ability and racist, sexist, homophobic attitudes as well as discrimination in general ? Does anyone contend that people with these traits do not tend to be attracted by conservative political views or that the conservatives do not cultivate and harvest this rich voter base ? The articles throw up more questions than answers. Racism, sexism, and homophobia need to be defined. The authors do not elaborate on what racism or homophobia is. Is someone who is repulsed at a man playing with another man's arse homophobic? Probably so according to "progressives". However, I, and many others, just think it's a bit sick. So does that make us stupid? Also, what is prejudice? How is prejudice defined by the authors? How do the authors step outside their own prejudices? Additionally, how is abstract thinking or cognitive skills related to the morality favoured by the authors? There's no direct link between the two, and neither have the authors explained why the brain works, or should work, in a predetermined manner like this. What does playing with another bloke's arse or approving of it have to do with abstract thinking anyway? The articles throw up more questions than answers. Racism, sexism, and homophobia need to be defined. Think you will find all of them in all the dictionaries ? Is someone who is repulsed at a man playing with another man's arse homophobic? Probably so according to "progressives". However, I, and many others, just think it's a bit sick. Are you making an admission ? I would think that by definition heterosexuals do not find it appealing, this does not make anyone homophobic, It is not acceptable to practice any type of sex in public and objections are understandable. People who are homophobic seem to hate and discriminate against the people themselves based on their sexual orientation. It is not related to being behind closed doors watching - that is something else - weird and perverted in a very different way.

Also the abstract thinking comes into it because as an abstract thinker, you can stand outside, put aside your fears, dislikes etc and look at it objectively. I don't want to play with arseholes, even girls arseholes but I can stand outside myself and analyse it without those thoughts entering my head and realise "it's none of my business what other people do behind closed doors". Bigots can't seem to grasp this and think they have a role to play in what other people do and at the same time think they are above reproach and should not be judged. They think far more subjectively.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 10:38pm:

You add variables which do not exist in the study.

There's a million other phenomena the authors could have chosen to use, but they used homophobia and racism - two classic left wing trendy slogans.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 9:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 10:38pm: You add variables which do not exist in the study. There's a million other phenomena the authors could have chosen to use, but they used homophobia and racism - two classic left wing trendy slogans.

You seem to be making the point that the study concluded: that the right is the natural home for those who support homophobia and racism ?

You went straight past all the middle men and got straight to the point of concluding that the studies result is correct.

What is it called when you kick a goal when you happen to be facing the wrong way?

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 7:57am:

You seem to be making the point that the study concluded: that the right is the natural home for those who support homophobia and racism ? You went straight past all the middle men and got straight to the point of concluding that the studies result is correct. What is it called when you kick a goal when you happen to be facing the wrong way?

Misty's upset that he could ever be in the 'low IQ' group  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 7:57am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 19th, 2014 at 9:46pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 10:38pm: You add variables which do not exist in the study. There's a million other phenomena the authors could have chosen to use, but they used homophobia and racism - two classic left wing trendy slogans. You seem to be making the point that the study concluded: that the right is the natural home for those who support homophobia and racism ? You went straight past all the middle men and got straight to the point of concluding that the studies result is correct. What is it called when you kick a goal when you happen to be facing the wrong way?

Yawn. Around in circles we go. Re-read reply 5 and 46.