'Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers', says study

opinion guy · 03-02-2012 03:49PM

old hippy wrote: »

You're correct, how could I ever hope to comprehend the mindset of a right winger?

Its pretty easy. Just watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IK4QLBnZP8

token101 · 03-02-2012 03:50PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Just as note: The reason presented for the apparent correlation in the paper is the hypothesis. That statistics that, on average, liberals are more intelligent is not being debated. It is true (at least for the sampled people), the "why" is the question trying to be answered.

And as far as I'm aware there's nothing wrong Social Psychology Quarterly. It's as peer reviewed as any other journal.

They've taken a random sample of people. For something like 'right wing' and 'left wing', which are fairly wide generalisations to begin with, it's a bit of a broad statement to say X>Y isn't it?

Well any journal that publishes sweeping statements like that as a title isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Seachmall · 03-02-2012 04:02PM

token101 wrote: »

They've taken a random sample of people. For something like 'right wing' and 'left wing', which are fairly wide generalisations to begin with, it's a bit of a broad statement to say X>Y isn't it?

That's the risk with all samples, that doesn't mean sampling is irrelevant. Either-way this paper doesn't deal with the collecting of the samples, so it's a non issue. The paper starts with the assumption that Liberals are more intelligent and follows on from there in an attempt explain why. So it's a perfectly valid title.

The assumptions it begins with are sourced and supported. If you disbelieve the assumptions you're free to locate the sources and identify flaws in the methodology used. That's the power of peer-review.

Criticize the paper based on how it came to it's conclusions, not on the conclusions themselves and definitely not on it's title.

KeithAFC · 03-02-2012 05:31PM

Greentopia wrote: »

That quote always struck me as a load of nonsense.
And just because Churchill said it doesn't mean what he said is true. And let's not forget he was a Conservative so would have been biased against liberals anyway.

Well obviously. That is the whole point.

Tar.Aldarion · 03-02-2012 06:17PM

I knew a guy who is outside 2 std. dev of your statistic! It's all lies!!!11

Yahew · 03-02-2012 07:44PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Given the state involvement in the economy, and in both domestic and international markets, I would hardly call China capitalist.

The State maintained some ownership of companies which also traded on stock markets and had independent boards of directors. Thats capitalist.

Ireland in 1950 wasn't communist but the State pretty much owned, and part-owned - because private capital couldn't step up to the plate - the means of production of electricity, train travel, bus travel, telephony, gas, airlines, television, medical insurance, post office, forestry, air ports, ports, Sugar, Steel, steam packets, some banks, life insurance, cable television, and a large chain of Hotels.

Some of this was guaranteed monopoly, others - the Great Southern Hotels - were not. They traded in the market place, with other competitors, which is similar to the Chinese system now. China is richer because it has loosened State control.

see here.

That probably employed most people outside of the actual State sector.

but we were not communist.

Herb Powell · 03-02-2012 08:26PM

amacachi wrote: »

If it was a leftist who did that data analysis it might be an idea to double-check the figures, lefties tend not to understand that one number being bigger than another can be a problem.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Fitting the stereotype much?

Pacifist Pigeon · 03-02-2012 08:34PM

I don't think that the article considers the full scope of what it means to be left wing. It boils being "right-wing" solely down to social issue, i.e., "racist and anti-gay views". You can be economically right-wing, socially right-wing or a mix of the two.

I would consider myself very socially left-wing (gay marriage/adoption, abortion, legalisation of drugs, etc.), while at the same time having very libertarian economically right-wing views (separation of the economy and the state). I basically disagree with the involvement of the states in all spheres - economically and socially. Objectivist individualism, basically. I think I may be somewhere in between a minarchist and an anarchist.

04KY · 03-02-2012 08:34PM

Seachmall wrote: »

And as far as I'm aware there's nothing wrong Social Psychology Quarterly. It's as peer reviewed as any other journal.

Whatever about nothing being wrong with Social Psychology Quarterly, the author of the paper seems a bit controversial. Link.

Also his methods of measuring intelligence are questionable.

Another Link.

Pacifist Pigeon · 03-02-2012 08:44PM

Yahew wrote: »

The State maintained some ownership of companies which also traded on stock markets and had independent boards of directors. Thats capitalist.

Wouldn't that be corporatism?

Jeboa Safari · 03-02-2012 09:25PM

The leftie parties in Ireland are by far the most deluded, more interested in protesting everything and coming up with ludicrous policies that make no sense than doing anything constructive.

An Carolineach · 03-02-2012 09:45PM

Much as I'd like to believe this, and much as it seems to reflect my own experience and acquaintances overall, lefties should also be smart enough to understand social construction and to push back against the current trend of "brain science" explaining that everything is innate or "hard-wired." For one thing, the theory would not explain regional differences in political views. I'm stuck in the American South, where conservatism among whites is the default setting. They can't ALL be lame-brains. Right? Right??

AskMyChocolate · 04-02-2012 04:59AM

K-9 wrote: »

Churchill was into his whiskey at that stage.

He was also extremely rich. Conservatism was very much in his own self-interest. Unlike the forelock-tugging fools who quote him.;)

AskMyChocolate · 04-02-2012 05:18AM

c_man wrote: »

I don't agree with a centrally planned economy. Nor with the state having any say in what adults do in private.

Most people might trump me as a 'right winger' owing to my economic stances but is that correct? Is a SFer who excuses the murder civilians for national territorial gain more intelligent than us because (s)he's 'left wing'?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely not. Where do you stand on the "shock and awe" strategy used in Iraq? Is money or oil a more noble goal?

AskMyChocolate · 04-02-2012 05:25AM

44leto wrote: »

If people were to learn anything from history which off course we don't and carry on repeating the mistakes of yester years. We should run to the hills every time socialism is mentioned.

Let us look at some of its stars, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Castro and many more. It what happens when a society pursues a utopia over individual rights.

That's totalitarianism.Would you care to point out an unfettered capitalist society that has survived? Try reading "The rise and fall of the Roman Empire".

James T Kirk · 04-02-2012 05:28AM

There is no Right or Left, Muslim or Christian, Conservative or Progressive, Capitalist or Hippy, or up down or fcuking sideways.

It's all stupid Us, fighting amongst ourselves.

Alien invasion FTW; conditions are perfect.

amacachi · 04-02-2012 05:34AM

Herb Powell wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Fitting the stereotype much?

Which? The lefties I was talking about who want to keep spending non-existent funds?

We all have different ideas of how to achieve freedom. None will come to pass under the current system and those who say it will rely on the current system. The system is a lot more than just the ones we see on TV. The alternative? Look at Egypt, there isn't a choice to be made.

AskMyChocolate · 04-02-2012 06:10AM

44leto wrote: »

If people were to learn anything from history which off course we don't and carry on repeating the mistakes of yester years. We should run to the hills every time socialism is mentioned.

Let us look at some of its stars, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Castro and many more. It what happens when a society pursues a utopia over individual rights.

Sorry, if I come across as angry, or as a "shinner" who's too stupid to understand "economics" or "finance", something better left(y:pac:) to the intelligentsia of Fine Gael and the private sector, because, obviously, socialists would be too stupid to understand.

But, did the NTMA go looking to Bank of Ireland and AIB to cover the losses for their gross stupidity, greed, and incompetence or was it the other way around?

The cuts to front-line services in education,health and law enforcement; are they due to the behaviour of Anglo-Irish Bank, or did An Post go mad?

Also, I remember saying to my brother, prior to the General Election, (he would be centre-right(Fine Gael)), "Does anybody believe the acid-trip that Noonan is on? 3.2% growth? With an austerity budget?

My brother is a financial consultant. At least he had the decency to blush.

And ye look down your nose at Sinn Fein and call them "economically illiterate".

The mind boggles.

Ellis Dee · 04-02-2012 07:29AM

Of course it's a big generalisation, but if you look at some prominent right-wingers, like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, the knuckle-dragging chimp, Dick Scrotorum or even our own Lucinda Cretin, then the study that found right-wingers are less intelligent than left-wingers falls into the category of what they call "nollatutkimus" (zero research) in Finland. Other classic examples include a study that found apartments with windows facing onto busy streets suffered more noise problems than those overlooking quiet courtyards, wealthy, healthy people were generally more contented in life than poor, sick ones, and so on ...:):):)

Pacifist Pigeon · 04-02-2012 12:58PM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Sorry, if I come across as angry, or as a "shinner" who's too stupid to understand "economics" or "finance", something better left(y:pac:) to the intelligentsia of Fine Gael and the private sector, because, obviously, socialists would be too stupid to understand.

But, did the NTMA go looking to Bank of Ireland and AIB to cover the losses for their gross stupidity, greed, and incompetence or was it the other way around?

The cuts to front-line services in education,health and law enforcement; are they due to the behaviour of Anglo-Irish Bank, or did An Post go mad?

Also, I remember saying to my brother, prior to the General Election, (he would be centre-right(Fine Gael)), "Does anybody believe the acid-trip that Noonan is on? 3.2% growth? With an austerity budget?

My brother is a financial consultant. At least he had the decency to blush.

And ye look down your nose at Sinn Fein and call them "economically illiterate".

The mind boggles.

Oh come on. Just think of what Ireland would be like with Sinn Féin. It'd be like Libya under Gaddafi, except without the oil.

Batsy · 04-02-2012 12:59PM

'Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers', says study

This is, of course, complete and utter tosh. I've noticed that the survey was conducted by Canadian academics, and Canadian acamedics - like ordinary Canadians - are amongst the most loony lefty people on the planet.

In fact, anyone only needs look at the views that left-wingers have to see that they are less intelligent than right-wingers with their commonsense views.

Left-wingers believe in global warming, even when the temperature of the planet is dropping; they believe single mothers should be given lavish benefits and jump the housing list; they set up organisations called The Black Police Association and The Women's Institute, but decry as "racist" or "sexist" anybody who sets up similar groups for white people or men; they believe the best way to get a country out of debt is not to make cuts but to actually keep SPENDING money; they believe uncontrolled immigration is a good thing, even though it isn't; they believe their country should decrease military spending and, if their country has any, get rid of their nukes, even though the world remains a very dangerous place; they believe that having a Prime Minister that was taught in some crappy inner-city comprehensive is preferable to having a Prime Minister who was taught in a good school like Eton.

So, I think we can just ignore this "study" from Canuck "academics" and, going off the lefty views states above, just keep believing that it is left wingers who are less intelligent than right wingers.

c_man · 04-02-2012 12:59PM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Absolutely not. Where do you stand on the "shock and awe" strategy used in Iraq? Is money or oil a more noble goal?

Call me a radical but I don't believe in killing people at all.

44leto · 04-02-2012 01:00PM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Sorry, if I come across as angry, or as a "shinner" who's too stupid to understand "economics" or "finance", something better left(y:pac:) to the intelligentsia of Fine Gael and the private sector, because, obviously, socialists would be too stupid to understand.

But, did the NTMA go looking to Bank of Ireland and AIB to cover the losses for their gross stupidity, greed, and incompetence or was it the other way around?

The cuts to front-line services in education,health and law enforcement; are they due to the behaviour of Anglo-Irish Bank, or did An Post go mad?

Also, I remember saying to my brother, prior to the General Election, (he would be centre-right(Fine Gael)), "Does anybody believe the acid-trip that Noonan is on? 3.2% growth? With an austerity budget?

My brother is a financial consultant. At least he had the decency to blush.

And ye look down your nose at Sinn Fein and call them "economically illiterate".

The mind boggles.

Really so you have not benefitted from the capitalist system you live "under". So I sit here in my big armchair watching my big" fukcing colour tele", on a computer with 25 megs broadband in a centrally heated house with 4 bedrooms. Now my car of which cost me some of my savings needs some diesel, those cutns in the oil business are charging me 1.60 a litre, can you believe that.
These total profit driven ***** why can’t they give me this for free. I am not going to go into my greedy capitalist company to whom those bastards expect me to turn in on time and do work for them, and produce something marketable for a not enough payment.

Boards advise me, should I be a socialist, would my life require a less work loaded lifestyle, is all my hard work in vain is communism easier.

Will I ever be satisfied.

Batsy · 04-02-2012 01:04PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

What this says is people with a lower level of intelligence as children grow up to be more prejudiced.

Left-wingers are as prejudiced as right-wingers, but they are prejudiced against different things.

Left-wingers are mainly prejudiced against white people, straight people, men and Christians.

Pacifist Pigeon · 04-02-2012 01:06PM

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

That's totalitarianism.Would you care to point out an unfettered capitalist society that has survived? Try reading "The rise and fall of the Roman Empire".

The Roman empire wasn't really a capitalist society, more fascist if anything.

One example of a near "pure" free-market capitalist society would be the US at end of the 19th century until 1913 when the Federal Reserve was introduced - after that it went down the road of state controlled capitalism/monetarism. It could have survived, it's just that politicians were too stupid/greedy to understand the implications of having a central bank. And then Keynes came along ... well he fucked up everything. It amazes me that Keynesianism is still employed yet nearly all his theories have been proven false and nonsensical in the real world.

Other than that there are no other modern examples of "free market". But I guess you could thank free-market capitalism for transforming the US from a former colony to a world economic power.

04-02-2012 01:09PM

Batsy wrote: »

This is, of course, complete and utter tosh. I've noticed that the survey was conducted by Canadian academics, and Canadian acamedics - like ordinary Canadians - are amongst the most loony lefty people on the planet.

In fact, anyone only needs look at the views that left-wingers have to see that they are less intelligent than right-wingers with their commonsense views.

Left-wingers believe in global warming, even when the temperature of the planet is dropping; they believe single mothers should be given lavish benefits and jump the housing list; they set up organisations called The Black Police Association and The Women's Institute, but decry as "racist" or "sexist" anybody who sets up similar groups for white people or men; they believe the best way to get a country out of debt is not to make cuts but to actually keep SPENDING money; they believe uncontrolled immigration is a good thing, even though it isn't; they believe their country should decrease military spending and, if their country has any, get rid of their nukes, even though the world remains a very dangerous place; they believe that having a Prime Minister that was taught in some crappy inner-city comprehensive is preferable to having a Prime Minister who was taught in a good school like Eton.

So, I think we can just ignore this "study" from Canuck "academics" and, going off the lefty views states above, just keep believing that it is left wingers who are less intelligent than right wingers.

I stopped reading here. Use of the phrase "loony left" indicates a significant risk of Daily Mail readership.

strobe · 04-02-2012 01:10PM

Batsy wrote: »

Left-wingers are as prejudiced as right-wingers, but they are prejudiced against different things.

Left-wingers are mainly prejudiced against white people, straight people, men and Christians.

Genius!

What took you Batsy? This thread has been sorely lacking without your patented brand of zany antics. I was just about to PM you a link to it.

Say more stuff like that, it's pure gold.

karma_ · 04-02-2012 01:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I stopped reading here. Use of the phrase "loony left" indicates a significant risk of Daily Mail readership.

You'll soon learn to stop reading when you see his username.

44leto · 04-02-2012 01:14PM

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

The Roman empire wasn't really a capitalist society, more fascist if anything.

One example of a near "pure" free-market capitalist society would be the US at end of the 19th century until 1913 when the Federal Reserve was introduced - after that it went down the road of state controlled capitalism/monetarism. It could have survived, it's just that politicians were too stupid/greedy to understand the implications of having a central bank.

Other than that there are no other modern examples. But I guess you could thank free-market capitalism for transforming the US from a former colony to a world economic power.

The irony is China a communist centrally controlled economy, but on paper only, but really the best example of a pure capitalist country. Although that system has elevated a whopping 300 million Chinese into the middle class, it has left behind a lot of people.

But even they have benefited more so then the socialist system China has left behind.

Capitalism works, but it is by its nature competitive and in any competition there are losers. Its as Victor Havel said, Communism is anti human nature (something like that).

My name is URL · 04-02-2012 01:16PM

Batsy wrote: »

Left-wingers are as prejudiced as right-wingers, but they are prejudiced against different things.

Left-wingers are mainly prejudiced against white people, straight people, men and Christians.

Sincerely,

Straight White Christian Male

'Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers', says study

Comments