Science Proves it! Right-wingers are racists/of low intelligence

[TMF]

While I don't doubt that lower intelligence can contribute to racism and other prejudices, but this article suggests that the liberals were right it making the (prejudiced) assumption that right-wingers are racists.

Cliff notes: People of lower intelligence gravitate toward right-wing ideals, therefore, conservative movements are populated by racists. I'm glad they got this study done before the election this year.. ya know, so the left can say that if you don't vote for Obama you're a racist. Oh, and for those of us who supported Herman Cain... yeah, were racists too.

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice - Yahoo! News

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

Edited January 27, 2012 by TMF 18B

[daddyo]

Ever notice how liberals are never able to win the debate with logic, reason, and common sense, so they adopt the intellectually lazy approach and attack their opponent's intelligence intelligence or bring up some other unrelated factor to divert the discussion?

EDIT: Too much intelligence!!! LOL

Edited January 27, 2012 by DaddyO

[Tempest455]

Ever notice how liberals are never able to win the debate with logic, reason, and common sense, so they adopt the intellectually lazy approach and attack their opponent's intelligence intelligence or bring up some other unrelated factor to divert the discussion?

Typically they argue with emotion/feelings rather than fact.

[Jonnin]

why are 99% of the engineers that I know right wingers? Oh yea.... that's not intellect, not a liberal arts degree! Granted, the right wingers have plenty of "Bubba" types, but then again, the left wingers get those marvelously brilliant folks in the inner city ghettos....

[BryanP]

Ever notice how liberals are never able to win the debate with logic, reason, and common sense, so they adopt the intellectually lazy approach and attack their opponent's intelligence intelligence or bring up some other unrelated factor to divert the discussion?

EDIT: Too much intelligence!!! LOL

I've noticed that behavior in people who are extremely liberal or conservative. They let their idealism run roughshod over pesky things like "facts." If the facts don't agree with their beliefs they go looking for new facts.

Sing it with me. "Moonbats to the left of me, wingnuts to the right, here I am stuck in the middle again ..."

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If this is a new study, will try find time taking a gander. Some academics have been generating these findings at least since WWII. There are some academics who still believe authoritarianism can only occur among the right wing, and have to keep churning out research, publish or perish. The authoritarianism is slightly different than the racism, but they are both in that same ballpark of designing research in such fashion to reinforce a belief, which is putting the cart before the horse.

Democrat vs Republican is not the same as "liberal" vs "conservative" and of course the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" is ill-defined and the words mean different stuff to different people.

However, on Democrat vs Republican, the democrats are in the majority among the poor/uneducated/didn't finish high school and the highest educated such as college perfessors. Republicans are in the majority among people with high school education and bachelor's degrees. Am tempted to also say masters degree folk are majority republican, but can't recall and don't have time to look it up.

Of course intelligence isn't necessarily the same as education, making more flaw in the comparison.

So democrats seem to occupy both ends and republicans seem to occupy the middle.

[Guest Scramasax]

I thought Liberals were just elitist. Regardless of the facts, if you don't believe them you are of inferior intellect and morals.

ts

[Jonnin]

liberal and conservative are pretty well defined. Its whether the person thinks the constitution is the law of our land or just some outdated suggestions that we can take or leave. IE liberal or conservative approach to following that document. The terms may mean different things to different people, but you are talking about john q. public here who probably cannot tell the difference between simple words like "suspicious" and "suspect" or when to use "and" to connect verbs compared to when to use infinitives. Resulting in people saying things like "try and" instead of "try to", or "that guy looks suspicious". Most people can barely speak the language, so it follows that terms are sometimes garbled...

[TMF]

The manner in which the data was collected is suspect to me. What is considered to be racist/prejudiced/homophobic is subjective. They reference part of the study done in the UK regarding questions about opinions on homosexuals. Well, a liberal might think my opinion on homosexuals is homophobic, although I don't have anything against gays... I just think the mechanics are gross and I don't get it. I don't think that's homophobic in the same way I don't think it's wrong to be grossed out by someone who likes to eat brussel sprouts. I don't care for either, but I don't care if someone else does so long as I'm not involved. I think liberals would classify me as homophobic because of that.

It's very easy for them to skew the data in how they judge the answers to the questions they ask in the surveys. Hell, for years my wife accused me of being racist because I don't use the term "African-American"; I say "black" instead. I don't think that's anymore racist than calling someone white. It's taken her years to accept that. So I think the data here isn't reliable; it's completely subjective.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

liberal and conservative are pretty well defined. Its whether the person thinks the constitution is the law of our land or just some outdated suggestions that we can take or leave. IE liberal or conservative approach to following that document. The terms may mean different things to different people, but you are talking about john q. public here who probably cannot tell the difference between simple words like "suspicious" and "suspect" or when to use "and" to connect verbs compared to when to use infinitives. Resulting in people saying things like "try and" instead of "try to", or "that guy looks suspicious". Most people can barely speak the language, so it follows that terms are sometimes garbled...

Hi Jonnin

I intentionally mangle language for humor. Then again, sometimes mangled language better expresses an idea. Sometimes will write in a pedantic stilted style for humor. Maybe the worst mangling is unintentional and never-noticed.

When working menial jobs, proper vocabulary and grammar could generate hostility and ridicule from co-workers so I became fluent in butchered southern-ese to fit in. When in Rome and all that. It doesn't seem restricted to high-school dropout co-workers. Am of the opinion fer instance that folks who work high-pay jobs in railroad or heavy industry HAVE to be pretty smart to get the job done, but unless things recently changed, you are gonna be the butt of some mockery if you work such a gig and go around speaking like a college perfessor. Old dad was an engineer in industry and his buds were a whole lot smarter than they sounded on the job.

One can't always identify when individuals mangle language intentionally vs accidentially. That college kid taking your burger order may have excellent reasons for illiterate speech on the job. Perhaps there are plenty of high school dropouts who know how to speak better than they do when camouflage seems prudent.

Then again, there are MANY smart people who are not talented with language or who do not care. Not all engineers are functionally illiterate but it is not difficult to find engineers who have trouble speaking de english even when they are trying to do right. I'd expect a typical engineer who speaks/writes garbled english to be LOTS SMARTER than ferinstance Janeane Garofalo who is evidently dumb as a brick except for good language skills.

====

Anyway, apologies for rambling. Gets worse with age.

I don't have complaints with your definition of liberal vs conservative, but the terms are used worldwide where the USA constitution has no relevance. Perhaps in some international academic circles the terms are tightly defined but the meaning is completely different than Rush Limbaugh's use of the same words?

A conservative Russian would most likely be hard-line commie authoritarian, and a liberal Russian would most likely be an open-market human-rights guy.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Jonnin]

Haha I can see that. Point was the confusion of terms is because they are misused by people, many of them in the media, which propagates back to the sheep, who misuse them until the misuse becomes common. I blame the media 100% for the suspicious example... if the news constantly gets it wrong (and these are journalists, who should know better) how will the sheep ever get it right? And they do, almost daily, misuse that word (among others).

Liberal/conservative is more confusing. There is even a "classical liberal" that is really what we would call a conservative.... I suppose they do mean a lot of things around the world. Keep it in the US, and it really just means democrat or republican (which are both totally wrong terms for the respective parties...).

[Garufa]

I don't know about the racist part but that moron Campfield's comments in the news today might lend some credibility to the study.

State Sen. Stacey Campfield defends comments on origin, transmission of AIDs » Knoxville News Sentinel

[gregintenn]

I've found that, as a whole, liberals make desicions based on emotion. Conservatives make desicions based on calculation, with emotion pretty much left out of the equation. There are more than a few morons in both camps.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't know about the racist part but that moron Campfield's comments in the news today might lend some credibility to the study.

State Sen. Stacey Campfield defends comments on origin, transmission of AIDs » Knoxville News Sentinel

Thanks Garufa. Perhaps that is a good supporting point.

I don't have any opinion on the origin of aids, but an old redneck bud who got his self a masters in radiation physics and PhD in some kind of radiation + biochem specialty, who moved up to an ivy league school and kept himself busy doing MRI biochem research-- My friend once offered the opinion that AIDs most likely jumped species either related to monkey snuff-sex, eating of poorly cooked monkey, or monkey vaccine experiments.

Dunno if he still thinks that, and I haven't the foggiest idea one way or t'other. Just sayin, maybe the idea isn't completely discredited among "smart experts". Dunno.

[mcurrier]

The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.

[Guest bkelm18]

I don't know about the racist part but that moron Campfield's comments in the news today might lend some credibility to the study.

State Sen. Stacey Campfield defends comments on origin, transmission of AIDs » Knoxville News Sentinel

I saw that. What a doofus. Genetic studies have shown that HIV/AIDS was transmitted to humans most likely from chimpanzees (which aren't monkeys) and the simplest, and frankly the most common sense way, for it to have transmitted to humans was through poor handling of infected meat. Nobody is bumpin' uglies with wild chimpanzees, or at least surviving the throws of passion to pass the virus on.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I saw that. What a doofus. Genetic studies have shown that AIDS was transmitted to humans most likely from chimpanzees (which aren't monkeys) and the simplest, and frankly the most common sense way, for it to have transmitted to humans was through poor handling of infected meat. Nobody is bumpin' uglies with wild chimpanzees, or at least surviving the throws of passion to pass the virus on.

I am not advocating the monkey sex theory (or chimp theory if you will) and do not have an opinion. My educated bud described the possible method of transmission and apparently believed that such things might have happened in the real world. It was much more disturbing than some idiot taking up with bonzo. If the practice ever really happened it once again confirms that some of our species are truly perverted and cruel.

[Guest bkelm18]

I am not advocating the monkey sex theory (or chimp theory if you will) and do not have an opinion. My educated bud described the possible method of transmission and apparently believed that such things might have happened in the real world. It was much more disturbing than some idiot taking up with bonzo. If the practice ever really happened it once again confirms that some of our species are truly perverted and cruel.

Oh I didn't mean to imply that it was impossible, and I have little doubt it's happened and may be the source of some transmittance of the disease, but after having worked around chimpanzees, their idea of a good time would be to rip off your arm and beat you to death with it. So I would give more credence to the bushmeat theory, but of course we'll probably never know for sure.

[BigK]

There's different areas to apply conservatism and liberalism too.

I know plenty who are conservative about economics and liberal about social issues.

I also know social conservatives who are liberal about economics.

People as a whole seem to be all over the place to me.

[Links2k]

I don't know about the racist part but that moron Campfield's comments in the news today might lend some credibility to the study.

State Sen. Stacey Campfield defends comments on origin, transmission of AIDs » Knoxville News Sentinel

Incredible

[Garufa]

Incredible

Actually par for the course. Welcome to what the Knoxville area has for a state senator, formerly representative.

[Guest lostpass]

Well the study was about Social conservatism. I know plenty of people that most would consider conservatives who aren't social conservatives. They don't care about gay marriage or people of another skin tone living next door. The do care about what the .gov does to them via laws and taxes. I suspect there is a large group of people in this country that is artificially divided by the conservative/liberal tag. I know more than a few self identified liberals who love guns and generally embrace republican ideals that are scared to death of people that want the gubmint in the bedroom.

Edited January 28, 2012 by lostpass

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Oh I didn't mean to imply that it was impossible, and I have little doubt it's happened and may be the source of some transmittance of the disease, but after having worked around chimpanzees, their idea of a good time would be to rip off your arm and beat you to death with it. So I would give more credence to the bushmeat theory, but of course we'll probably never know for sure.

Thanks bkelm18

I'm too ignorant to favor any theory. Was reading more today and got to wondering--

1. Did africans always eat chimps or is it a recent practice?

2. If Africans always ate chimps and chimps always had SIV-- If we have no reason to suspect modern africans of being any more or less competent than their ancestors at butchering bushmeat-- Why didn't careless butchering trigger a species jump 200 years ago or 2000 years ago? Is there a better answer than-- "It had to happen sometime and 1930 was as good a time as any"

3. If "as good a time as any" is about as good an answer as any--

-- a. Might that imply that a species jump is not likely?

-- b. Or might it imply that the virus is relatively new for both chimps and humans?

Am not trying to prove anything. Just got idly curious about it.