Saturday, January 28, 2012

No Comment

Maybe this is why teabaggRs don't like science: Here's yet another study about cognitive differences between conservatives and liberals, about which I've already written much.

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said.


Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.


Anonymous said...

Correlation does not equal causation. The article points out that lower intelligence groups had less contact with other grooups/races (for unknown reasons, you cannot assume its by choice) and less exposure to other groups correlated with more prejudice. There are way too many confounders to draw a strong conclusion. In fact, its human nature o be cautious of unfamiliar ppl, foods, places, and things. The study also compares social conservatives against ALL liberals. Why are fiscal conservatives not included? How would you react to a study comparing only inner city liberals to all conservatives in various categories?

A prominent scientist published a study that blacks had lower IQ's than other groups eveen after controlling for other variables. He was fired and called racist. What makes it ok to attempt to draw conclusions on political affiliation but not race?

Its well documented that liberals give less to charity than conservatives despite making 6% higher incomes. Even Obama only donateed 1% of his income to charity before running for Potus. Is that proof that liberals are objectively less charitable, or are there confounding issues that invalidate that conclusion?

I hope Ive highlghted the point that data from Sociological studies should be viewed with a very skeptical eye, as it's an inexact science.

Your Fiscally Conservative, Socially Moderate, Constitution Reading, Gun Clinging Precordial Thumper

Sid Schwab said...

I think you misconstrue the way the study was set up, as described:

The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured.

I think the study on blacks was criticized more for its methodology, as you are trying to do here, but less well substantiated. I agree, however, that social studies are much more squishy than other areas.

It is, though, yet another study among many to which I've referred in the past, linked via this post, that have found measurable differences in the way conservative vs liberal brains operate, and they all tend to show the same thing: conservatives are more fact-averse, less likely to be open to new information, and respond more negatively to frightening images.

I report, you decide.

P.S: as a constitution reader, I'd have liked to hear your thoughts on Newt's plan to arrest judges with whom he disagrees. Silent on that post, you were.

Anonymous said...

I posted on that topic on your December 20th "Arrest Them All" entry. I've copied below, but didn't type much because it was so obviously unconstitutional and ridiculous. Instead, I chose to highlight "your guys" unconstitutional actions with a pop culture character know as the Honey Badger. That being said, arresting judges is an order of magnitude greater than engaging a citizen that is also an enemy combatant on foreign lands.

That crazy Newt! What a crazy idea!
He's like the Honey Badger; He just dont give a $--t.

Wanna hear two more Honey Badger-ish crazy ideas?

1.) Detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial:

2.) A President ordering the assassination of U.S. citizens:


p.s. In case you haven't met the Honey Badger:

Sid Schwab said...

Okay, you're right, I forgot that. I even responded to it.

Like an open-minded person, I readily admit when I'm wrong. Although I'd have to say it's a little unclear from your comment there what you thought about Newt, preferring, as I said, the "I know you are but what am I" dynamic so favored here. And I agreed the actions to which you referred were disturbing to me, if less black and white, legally, than arresting judges.

Frank Drackman said...

Jeez-Us Sid, I know regressing to Childhood's the natural course for Alzheimers...
But seriously, I stopped callin people big dummies when I was 13 or 14, you know, when I started making fun of there sexual orientation or ethnicity.
And the problem is stupid people don't know there stupid, while everyone knows what a Homo is.
And speakin of stupid Ethnic Groups, (lookin both ways)
You know that group, that votes %99.999 DemoKKKrat, Plays Basketball really well, and after 140+ years of freedom still has an unemplyment rate higher than Illiterate Double Amputee Hondurans with backs still dripping from the Rio Grand...
Well, they dont score really well on standardized tests either, which is good, cause if they did, they might stop buying lottery tickets and rich assholes like me would have to pay for there kids college.
I know its "Their"


Popular posts