Study links low intelligence with right-wing beliefs
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
Low intelligence I believe is linked to people that are easily led by the nose by any leader.
Whether it's politics, or religion.
Promises of candies and kisses and dreams of a fantasy world are usually used.
Whether it's politics, or religion.
Promises of candies and kisses and dreams of a fantasy world are usually used.
Yes there are lots of intelligent folks in the world. That's why the world is such a well adjusted harmonious place.
The studies that say right-wingers or conservatives are dumber than left-wingers or liberals all stem from original study conducted in the 1940s by the Marxist sociologist and philosopher, Theodore Adorno. This was probably the most influential - and most shoddy - piece of social science of the twentieth century. Ultimately published as the book entitled The Authoritarian Personality, the study purported to "prove" that holding conservative or right-wing views was a mental defect. Using the notorious "F-Scale test (the F stood for Fascist), Adorno and his colleagues purported to have come up with an objective test to determine how protofascist - or just plain fascist - a person was.
The problem was that the test - as well as the long interviews the researchers conducted - worked from the assumption that traditionalism and devotion to a strong family were both symptoms and causes of fascism (Adorno and his Frankfurt School colleagues were convinced that Nazism was spawned by the traditional German family). If this wasn't bad enough, a test designed to find totalitarian tendencies treated Communists - including outright Stalinist - and conventional American liberals as almost indistinguishable. In fact, Adorno thought that anyone who saw similarities between Nazism and communism was suffering from delusions. A methodological mess, The Authoritarian Personality used next to no statistical data and relayed on tendentious interview techniques, loaded phrases, and ideological question begging.
While the Authoritarian Personality had its diligent critics, it electrified the liberal academic nervous system. Richard Hofstadter, one of the most influential liberal historians of the twentieth century, drank deep and long from Adorno's elixir, arguing that all political arguments could be boiled down to cheap psychological motivations. Charles Beard was a pioneer of this approach as well, arguing that the Founding Fathers were motivated by little more than their class consciousness as rich landowners. In 1958, Hebert McClosky, a trailblazer in the field of "political behavior," published his famous "Conservatism and Personality" study in the American Political Science Review. His extensive "research," complete with the "latest methods," found that the conservative "fears change, dreads disorder, and is intolerant of nonconformity," and he tends to "derogate reason and intellectuality and ... eschew theory." These "personality types" were drawn from the raks of the "uninformed, the poorly educated, and .... the less intelligent," but also that they were "inflexible and unyielding" and "intolerant." To boot, the conservative "derogates reason."
How can you reason with a people we are hardwired to "derogate reason."
Throughout the 1960s, this arrogant bigotry masked as science leached into the popular political culture, finding expression in editorials, books, and even films (the General Jack D. Ripper character in the movie Dr. Stranglelove and his phobia about Communists sapping out precious bodily fluids was a perfect satirical stand-in for the work of Adorno, McClosky, et al.). In 1964 , over a thousand mental-health professionals thought nothing of signing a statement that Senator Barry Goldwater was not "psychologically fit" to be president of the United States - without having met him. Why? Because he was a conservative. The organizer of the petition took out an ad in the New York Times announcing this very scientific finding. Goldwater sued - and won.
Today textbooks from grade school to grad school are chockablock with subtle variations of this clinical bias, working from the assumption that conservatism is something to be educated out of students. In 2003, researches at UC Berkley's Institute of Personality and Social Research published "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" in the Psychological Bulletin - one of the most prestigious journals of academic psychology. The study did no original research. Rather, it performed a meta-analysis of previous studies, some eighty-eight in all, and found - shockingly! - that conservatism is, as much now as ever as, a kind of mental defect. The methodology was the academic equivalent of shouting into an echo chamber and discovering that there are indeed echoes inside.
The press release issued by Berkeley explained that:
The actual paper is no better. What about the authoritarian personalities like say, Castro and Stalin? Easy! They too were conservatives. The authors write:
The problem was that the test - as well as the long interviews the researchers conducted - worked from the assumption that traditionalism and devotion to a strong family were both symptoms and causes of fascism (Adorno and his Frankfurt School colleagues were convinced that Nazism was spawned by the traditional German family). If this wasn't bad enough, a test designed to find totalitarian tendencies treated Communists - including outright Stalinist - and conventional American liberals as almost indistinguishable. In fact, Adorno thought that anyone who saw similarities between Nazism and communism was suffering from delusions. A methodological mess, The Authoritarian Personality used next to no statistical data and relayed on tendentious interview techniques, loaded phrases, and ideological question begging.
While the Authoritarian Personality had its diligent critics, it electrified the liberal academic nervous system. Richard Hofstadter, one of the most influential liberal historians of the twentieth century, drank deep and long from Adorno's elixir, arguing that all political arguments could be boiled down to cheap psychological motivations. Charles Beard was a pioneer of this approach as well, arguing that the Founding Fathers were motivated by little more than their class consciousness as rich landowners. In 1958, Hebert McClosky, a trailblazer in the field of "political behavior," published his famous "Conservatism and Personality" study in the American Political Science Review. His extensive "research," complete with the "latest methods," found that the conservative "fears change, dreads disorder, and is intolerant of nonconformity," and he tends to "derogate reason and intellectuality and ... eschew theory." These "personality types" were drawn from the raks of the "uninformed, the poorly educated, and .... the less intelligent," but also that they were "inflexible and unyielding" and "intolerant." To boot, the conservative "derogates reason."
How can you reason with a people we are hardwired to "derogate reason."
Throughout the 1960s, this arrogant bigotry masked as science leached into the popular political culture, finding expression in editorials, books, and even films (the General Jack D. Ripper character in the movie Dr. Stranglelove and his phobia about Communists sapping out precious bodily fluids was a perfect satirical stand-in for the work of Adorno, McClosky, et al.). In 1964 , over a thousand mental-health professionals thought nothing of signing a statement that Senator Barry Goldwater was not "psychologically fit" to be president of the United States - without having met him. Why? Because he was a conservative. The organizer of the petition took out an ad in the New York Times announcing this very scientific finding. Goldwater sued - and won.
Today textbooks from grade school to grad school are chockablock with subtle variations of this clinical bias, working from the assumption that conservatism is something to be educated out of students. In 2003, researches at UC Berkley's Institute of Personality and Social Research published "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" in the Psychological Bulletin - one of the most prestigious journals of academic psychology. The study did no original research. Rather, it performed a meta-analysis of previous studies, some eighty-eight in all, and found - shockingly! - that conservatism is, as much now as ever as, a kind of mental defect. The methodology was the academic equivalent of shouting into an echo chamber and discovering that there are indeed echoes inside.
The press release issued by Berkeley explained that:
Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.
Ahah. So Hitler and Mussoline - who both sought to socialize their economies, ban guns, ban dissent, ban freedom of every kind - were just like Reagan and Rush Limbaugh, who hold diametrically opposite positions in virtually every regard. Hitler was obsessive about economic and social equality - for all Germans. Mussolini never for a moment relinquished his adamantine faith - forged as a leader of the Italian Socialist Party - that he was a revolutionary. What's more, both men were devoutly atheistic enemies of Christianity, and yet the literature going back to Adorno and McClosky tells us that religious dogmatism is the soul of conservatism. The actual paper is no better. What about the authoritarian personalities like say, Castro and Stalin? Easy! They too were conservatives. The authors write:
There are also cases of left-wing ideologues who, once they are in power, steadfastly resist change, and allegedly in the name of egalitarianism, such as Stalin or Khrushchev or Castro. It is reasonable to suggest that some of these historical figure may be considered politically conservative.
Last edited:
ceos gots 200 IQ branes?
if you is drivin a speedy lil VW
what part of fukushima could still escape you?
can you spell too big to fail?
its like the officer test that's as easy as falling off a log
if you can't fall of the log
you are an officer
corporate or military officer
no matter.... too dumb to fall over is an equal opportunity affliction
We live in an entertainment oriented society. We choose to listen to those who tell us what we enjoy hearing. What fuels the popular notions that attract us. For those who are attracted to conservative principles we have self appointed gurus like Rush Limbaugh for one example. On the other side of the coin we have the liberal mouth piece's like Bill Maher. Both of which become very wealthy fueling the division. Each side considers the other to be "idiots", morons, So on an so forth. The definition of which is simply those who take an opposing view to the others opinion. So the circus continues, with the instigators laughing all the way to the bank.
You are about as lefty libby as they come. One of the leftard sheep.
Wow... you're pretty dumb!
Using all 200 at the same time is a different story.
Die in a high speed crash or a long lingering death as you change species in one generation.
TBTF is spelled Rolfschild
To fall you have to have climbed on a log at least once.
Right and right for you. A new record.
... says the silly poster that plays on the internet all day. Don't be so silly.
Coming from a poster that calls Trudeau "Justine" in a juvenile attempt to put him down by feminizing his name (something I grew out of in grade three), that's ****ing hilarious, not to mention just plain silly.
But it does help prove the point made in the study. Rummy, the straw man, as usual, is grasping at straws, belittling others because he has nothing to contribute in his defense.
That's why everyone in the forum knew you were voting NDP before you even said so!
Clifford... You are the best irrefutable proof that anyone could hope for in terms of my first comment in this thread
Please explain how Peeair Trudeau and Jean ChRETIeN became PM then.
Martin's ability to balance the budget was only surpassed by his ability to stick it to healthcare, seniors, education, etc. (and the provinces in general) in order to balance the budget. He helped ChRETIeN win the next election is what that was all about. Well, that and making himself look like some kind of hero.
lol And you call everyone else "silly". freakin funny
Physician, heal thyself.
<---- Now, THAT's funny. It comes from someone who considers himself intelligent because he can call everyone else a silly social conservative. lmao
Perhaps a Spock wannabe? The problem I have with calling you a Spock wannabe is that even Gr. 3 kids at the time would know that Spock did not use insults to make himself look intelligent. He also stayed on topic. And yes, I know that it was all scripted for tv. But the context still remains.
Please continue, though. It's amusing for the time being.
An exception is not an exception when it is the norm.
Stop being so silly. My intelligence isn't tied to silly social conservatives. They (as well as you) would be silly regardless of my intelligence level.
you can have a lack of money with no money?
bull!
you have a lot of growing up to do?
bull!
make a freakin point bub:
and support it with a little more then the obvious conclusion one has to draw after reading your post:
you are the proof that the OP is in fact true
"ad hominim"
look it up dude
and then don't do it.
it will improve your non existant conswervetive debating skills immensely
ps i volunteer helping feed old vets and the homeless
so when it comes to "poverty"
put up or shut up
