Kevyn

I thought this article explains much of what we find posted on OPP, enjoy!

A Canadian  study published in the journal of Psychological Science, has revealed that people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence. Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.

It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly "different" others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.

But, drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust. Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to r****m. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo". Even for someone not yet renowned for liberal reticence, this feels hard to write.

This is not to suggest that all conservatives are stupid. There are some very clever people in government, advising politicians, running thinktanks and writing for newspapers, who have acquired power and influence by promoting rightwing ideologies.

But what we now see among their parties – however intelligent their guiding spirits may be – is the abandonment of any pretence of high-minded conservatism. On both sides of the Atlantic, conservative strategists have discovered that there is no pool so shallow that several million people won't drown in it. Whether they are  promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US, that man-made c*****e c****e is an eco-f*****t-c*******t-anarchist conspiracy, or that the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to what two former Republican ideologues,  David Frum and Mike Lofgren, have been saying. Frum warns that " conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics". The result is a "shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology" which has "ominous real-world consequences for American society".

Lofgren complains that " the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital centre today". The Republican party, with its "prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science" is appealing to what he calls the "low-information v**er", or the "misinformation v**er". While most office holders probably don't believe the "reactionary and paranoid claptrap" they peddle, "they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base".

These are the perfect conditions for a billionaires' feeding frenzy. Any party elected by misinformed, suggestible v**ers becomes a vehicle for undisclosed interests. A tax break for the 1% is dressed up as freedom for the 99%. The regulation that prevents big banks and corporations exploiting us becomes an assault on the working man and woman. Those of us who discuss man-made c*****e c****e are cast as elitists by people who happily embrace the claims of  Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson or thinktanks funded by ExxonMobil or the  Koch brothers: now the authentic voices of the working class.

Brian Devon

Great post. The problem with conservatives is that they believe in simple answers to complex questions...and that answer is usually wrong.

Winter Solstice Loc: Salt Lake City

Anyone who follows blindly is of low intelligence. People who look at all sides of an issue and decide for themselves are not.

I cannot comment further. This article is so obviously Left driven that it doesn't even deserve discussion.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I do love the writings of the lefties extolling thier great intelligence and convincing themselves of their superiority - they focus on the so-called rich conservatives, completely ignoring the rich liberals - they cast aspersions of the large corporations allegedly financing conservatives all the while completely ignorant of the mutual benefit societies of large corporations looking to rent seek from large government programs - a Pepsi Cola, for example, lobbying to extend food stamps is totally invisible to these self appointed intellectuals.

Suggest they might just want to scan Dr. Sowell's Intellectuals in Society - but doubt they would - it must might shake their smugness.

Retired669

Outstanding Post Kevyn! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

The wingnut tards aren't known for thinking in-depth. Examine their proposals on just about anything and the consequences generally lead to shambles. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

I think it's the old " chicken/egg " conundrum. Does being conservative make you ignorant or does being ignorant lead you to conservatism? I don't know about that, but here's a truism; all politicians are i***ts.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Old crows teaching the young.

bobgssc

Don't you just love psuedo-intellectuals? If you read the original article, it does imply that people with lower intelligence are more prone to various biases. They tend to be less trusting of people and therefore tend to develop prejudices based on their lack of trust. (Having worked with many special needs "children", I really find this hard to believe... they are the most trusting, loving individuals I have ever met.) Mind you, I couldn't find any peer reviews, or even more importantly the actual study (I'm one of those foolish people who believe more in the actual data than what someone says about it, regardless of which side wrote it). Now, here is where the fun part starts. The l*****t elitists who wrote the article, use the old stereotypes they created (conservatives don't think i*****l a***ns should be granted blanket amnesty, therefore they are prejudiced for example) and apply that falsehood to this supposed study. I could go on, but it really isn't worth my time except to point out one more little thing that has crept into society almost to the point where everyone believes it...

(quoted from above) "Those of us who discuss man-made c*****e c****e are cast as elitists by people who happily embrace the claims of  Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson or thinktanks funded by ExxonMobil or the  Koch brothers: now the authentic voices of the working class."

This is so foolish. So, a scientist is paid by Exxon, therefore he is automatically tainted, while a scientist working in academia is a trusted source. If one stops to think for a second, the scientist working in academia depends on grants and gifts in order to do his research (and therefore get paid), and if there isn't an imminent disaster, funding dries up. Exxon actually has a vested interest in not doing too much damage to the earth and therefore should be interested in good studies whether they support or refute what they are trying to figure out, while the academic knows that in order to keep getting paid, he/she must pronounce a disaster on the horizon that must be attended by those great scientists.
I am not saying that all scientists working in the universities are crooked, what I'm saying is that scientists who don't think g****l w*****g will destroy the planet in the next century are necessarily any more biased than those who depend on disasters as a way of making a living.

Finally, if you want to be accepted as unbiased when presenting these articles, DON'T PRESENT AN ARTICLE... show us the actual study data and the peer reviews which should accompany any valid study. (If you don't understand that last statement, stick to the Enquirer and just be secure in the knowledge that you are more smarterer than the rest of us.) And, if your idea of being up on the latest means reading Science magazine or the Science section of your Sunday paper, you should probably abstain from this type of discussion.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

The article is more humorous than factual, just like r****ded666.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup:

50055005

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

“A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do,” he says. “A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social e******y on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.”

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

“The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,” he says. “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

kush

Let's get rid of the labels and just look at the specifics of any issue.

Donmac Loc: Lincoln, RI

I am one of those who claim to be "right wing" conservatives. I must be of "low intelligence", but I certainly am among a lot of those who recognize i***ts, criminal behavior, stupidity, illegal activity, etc. etc.etc.
I also adhere to the verse in Scripture,-"with all thy getting, get thee understanding". Look it up, if you have the intelligence to find it and subscribe to it daily. It will make you wonder about liberal thinking without morals.

50055005

I'll take wisdom and common sense over so called intelligence any day... there are lots of educated i***ts now days, the colleges are full of em...

LurkingTom Loc: North Dakota

:thumbup: