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

Herb Powell · 04-02-2012 01:18PM

amacachi wrote: »

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.

The stereotype of right-wingers always throwing in insults, instead of just stating what they mean.

rossie1977 · 04-02-2012 01:19PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Based on averages really , a lot of the smartest and richest oeople in the workd have fairly right wing views

richest for sure, smartest, well i think most of the worlds best university professors, scientists and it specialists would disagree with you

karma_ · 04-02-2012 01:23PM

44leto wrote: »

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).

So you're saying the most ideal form of capitalism comes under a communist government?

Thanks for sharing that gem.

Also, why does there have to be losers? It's not a race you know.

Pacifist Pigeon · 04-02-2012 01:26PM

44leto wrote: »

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).

China is more corporatism if anything. One of the first pioneers of modern capitalism, Adam Smith, envisaged a model for society that was similar to a free market capitalist system. China isn't the best example of real capitalism at play in my opinion. A true free-market capitalist system would boost an even larger middle class.

04-02-2012 01:27PM

rossie1977 wrote: »

richest for sure, smartest, well i think most of the worlds best university professors, scientists and it specialists would disagree with you

Certainly. There is a widely held misconception in this country that rich=smart. The only thing that can be demonstrated to be true is that rich=rich, no more. A lot of the people who were rolling in it during the bubble were doing so because they were dumb enough to buy into the whole property bubble fairytale. I'm talking about certain high profile bankers, business men and developers who are now either bankrupt or relying on the taxpayer to maintain their lifestyle.

We have socialism in this country, the poor pay their taxes to subsidise the rich.

Batsy · 04-02-2012 01:38PM

strobe wrote: »

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.

I speak the (inconvenient) truth, of course.

Lefties are quick to denounce anybody who doesn't like black people, homosexuals, Muslims, women, illegal immigrants and prisoners, but they cannot see that they are as prejudiced as those people who they claim are prejudiced: left-wingers are generally prejudiced against white people, straight people, Jews, men, the ordinary hard-working natives of a country and law-abiding citizens.

But woe betide any brave sole who dares call a left-winger prejudiced, as I've just discovered.

44leto · 04-02-2012 01:39PM

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

China is more corporatism if anything. One of the first pioneers of modern capitalism, Adam Smith, envisaged a model for society that was similar to a free market capitalist system. China isn't the best example of real capitalism at play in my opinion. A true free-market capitalist system would boost an even larger middle class.

It is in the sense the workers have no rights, they are just marketing their skills. Its why we can't compete with them, companies their don't even have the expense of environmental issues. They just dump their waste anywhere.

So it is purely capitalist driven with no thoughts to the wider community. In Russia another form has emerged a mafia corruption kleptocracy capitalism, although Russia is growing by 4 to 6% annually for the last 5 years, I wouldn't want to live there.

44leto · 04-02-2012 01:39PM

karma_ wrote: »

So you're saying the most ideal form of capitalism comes under a communist government?

Thanks for sharing that gem.

Also, why does there have to be losers? It's not a race you know.

Genius.

Pacifist Pigeon · 04-02-2012 01:47PM

44leto wrote: »

It is in the sense the workers have no rights, they are just marketing their skills. Its why we can't compete with them, companies their don't even have the expense of environmental issues. They just dump their waste anywhere.

It's not capitalist because of the amount of state intervention in the economy. It's totalitarian corporatism.

44leto · 04-02-2012 01:54PM

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

It's not capitalist because of the amount of state intervention in the economy. It's totalitarian corporatism.

But every state has to intervene in an economy, the state issues the currency and charges taxes, but after that industry there is pretty much left to its self, in comparison to the west virtually no regulations. IMO it sucks, but the Chinese people have never enjoyed such wealth in all its history.

It is working, but as the economy develops so will workers rights, at least that is the way things went in the west. But China is China and a unique economic experiment.

04-02-2012 01:56PM

44leto wrote: »

It is working, but as the economy develops so will workers rights, at least that is the way things went in the west.

But, but, but that means *gasp* trade unions! Those loony lefties would ruin everything!

04-02-2012 01:59PM

Batsy wrote: »

I speak the (inconvenient) truth, of course.

Lefties are quick to denounce anybody who doesn't like black people, homosexuals, Muslims, women, illegal immigrants and prisoners, but they cannot see that they are as prejudiced as those people who they claim are prejudiced: left-wingers are generally prejudiced against white people, straight people, Jews, men, the ordinary hard-working natives of a country and law-abiding citizens.

But woe betide any brave sole who dares call a left-winger prejudiced, as I've just discovered.

You should work for Fox News.

RichieC · 04-02-2012 02:02PM

Lol at batsy. Canadians are actually quite conservative. Their government currently is too. You really should stop reading tabloids. Its rotting your brains.

Hmm.. Might have stumbled on causation here :pac:

44leto · 04-02-2012 02:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But, but, but that means *gasp* trade unions! Those loony lefties would ruin everything!

Is the OP right about right wingers been dumber then left wingers, because it is not in evidence in this thread.

Isn't that what happens, the class struggle as marx put it, I would class myself on the right but I am still in a union:rolleyes:

karma_ · 04-02-2012 02:12PM

44leto wrote: »

Is the OP right about right wingers been dumber then left wingers, because it is not in evidence in this thread.

Isn't that what happens, the class struggle as marx put it, I would class myself on the right but I am still in a union:rolleyes:

I perused your posts in this thread, and I have to agree with the Canadians.

44leto · 04-02-2012 02:15PM

karma_ wrote: »

I perused your posts in this thread, and I have to agree with the Canadians.

I just read one of your and I know they are wrong in your case:pac::D

Solair · 04-02-2012 02:20PM

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a question of 'right wingers' vs 'left wingers' being more or less intelligent.

In general it's more people who are absolutely incapable of seeing another point of view or seeing an alternative viewpoint to their own who tend to be as thick as two short planks.

I think you can get people who are not very intelligent and who just follow a dogma, and they exist at all sides of the political and social spectrum.

Remember in the US "Left Wing" tends to just mean not conservative or centre-left. Right wing tends to mean ultra conservative by our standards.

In an Irish or European context "left wing" can sometimes mean dogmatic Marxists who can be every bit as lacking in an ability to see another point of view as the most right wing US bible thumping redneck.

In general I think the most intelligent people tend to be not locked into any particular 'wing' agenda. They're pragmatists.

At present, I think most Irish politics occupies the centre space, so hopefully it's a little bit more sensible than some of the extreme right nonsense we are seeing in the US and parts of the continent.

token101 · 04-02-2012 02:57PM

Seachmall wrote: »

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.

I'm not criticising the paper, I'm criticising the entire notion that you could undertake a study like this and feel that it would have any merit. It's a sweeping generalisation based on samples. It's nonsense and holds no merit.

token101 · 04-02-2012 03:00PM

Solair wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a question of 'right wingers' vs 'left wingers' being more or less intelligent.

In general it's more people who are absolutely incapable of seeing another point of view or seeing an alternative viewpoint to their own who tend to be as thick as two short planks.

I think you can get people who are not very intelligent and who just follow a dogma, and they exist at all sides of the political and social spectrum.

Remember in the US "Left Wing" tends to just mean not conservative or centre-left. Right wing tends to mean ultra conservative by our standards.

In an Irish or European context "left wing" can sometimes mean dogmatic Marxists who can be every bit as lacking in an ability to see another point of view as the most right wing US bible thumping redneck.

In general I think the most intelligent people tend to be not locked into any particular 'wing' agenda. They're pragmatists.

At present, I think most Irish politics occupies the centre space, so hopefully it's a little bit more sensible than some of the extreme right nonsense we are seeing in the US and parts of the continent.

Probably the most relevant point in the entire thread. And it shows why the entire idea of studying something like this is pointless.

04-02-2012 03:01PM

token101 wrote: »

I'm not criticising the paper, I'm criticising the entire notion that you could undertake a study like this and feel that it would have any merit. It's a sweeping generalisation based on samples. It's nonsense and holds no merit.

Perhaps you could provide a detailed critique of their statisitical methodology.

The only generalisations that can be made are the ones based on large scale population sampling data. All I've seen to refute this study here are anecdotes, which in evidential terms, rank slightly below tea leaf reading and burnt toast holy apparitions.

UsernameInUse · 04-02-2012 04:15PM

Greentopia wrote: »

Not so much rational in the U.S. IMO... Libertarianism there means precisely the opposite of what it means in the rest of the world (aside from a few fan boys of Right U.S. style Libertarianism here) and has historically meant-Left Libertarianism.

I would consider myself more Libertarian in recent years but on the Left (think Chomsky). I consider myself a rational person but I would favour a communal approach rather than American style individualism.

Ireland is crying out for a Libertarian Party. They'd win at least a dozen seats in their first election. What Ireland needs is precisely an economically conservative party (we need to balance the books), along with a socially liberal worldview.

BOHtox · 04-02-2012 04:40PM

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Ireland is crying out for a Libertarian Party. They'd win at least a dozen seats in their first election. What Ireland needs is precisely an economically conservative party (we need to balance the books), along with a socially liberal worldview.

Fine Gael?

The privatisation Fine Gael will be doing (something like €3B ) is a conservative party. They'd hardly be socially right wing as well.

Dudess · 04-02-2012 08:00PM

Batsy wrote: »

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.

Pahahahahaaa! :pac:

So, what about the left-wingers in the above categories? What about the varying degrees of left-wing? What about... perhaps... thinking?

Oh and I see you stick up for Jews - I've a feeling you wouldn't have 10 years ago, but they're a group whom it's "ok" for far-right knee-jerking individuals to like now.

K-9 · 04-02-2012 09:09PM

BOHtox wrote: »

Fine Gael?

The privatisation Fine Gael will be doing (something like €3B ) is a conservative party. They'd hardly be socially right wing as well.

The FG party of Garret in the 80's was more socially liberal than this one, far greater reforming agenda.

LH Pathe · 05-02-2012 03:26AM

More. Less is moar..

right-wingers are more dumb than left-wingers.

PHIDIAS · 05-02-2012 04:39AM

Personally speaking i might have to agree with the study. I have found right wingers to be bible thumping hypocrites who try to curb peoples rights at every opportunity.

czx · 05-02-2012 06:01AM

Dudess wrote: »

Pahahahahaaa! :pac:

So, what about the left-wingers in the above categories? What about the varying degrees of left-wing? What about... perhaps... thinking?

Oh and I see you stick up for Jews - I've a feeling you wouldn't have 10 years ago, but they're a group whom it's "ok" for far-right knee-jerking individuals to like now.

stop being racist, we're all human

Pacifist Pigeon · 05-02-2012 02:33PM

44leto wrote: »

But every state has to intervene in an economy, the state issues the currency and charges taxes, but after that industry there is pretty much left to its self, in comparison to the west virtually no regulations. IMO it sucks, but the Chinese people have never enjoyed such wealth in all its history.

It is working, but as the economy develops so will workers rights, at least that is the way things went in the west. But China is China and a unique economic experiment.

The thing is, the state doesn't need to issue currency, people can still trade off anything and banks can still issue their own private notes as a representation of real value. In terms of tax, this is a necessity for the state to survive, but do we really need a state or a central government? If we were to maintain tax (which I don't believe in) it should be imparted in a completely unbiased manner in a way that wouldn't effect market equilibrium.

China is a little different, in my opinion. Their system wouldn't work in most western countries. It's to do with Chinese culture, I think, and the deeply embedding philosophy of Confucianism in their way of thinking.

steelcityblues · 05-02-2012 02:37PM

PHIDIAS wrote: »

Personally speaking i might have to agree with the study. I have found right wingers to be bible thumping hypocrites who try to curb peoples rights at every opportunity.

You can't be the most intelligent guy yourself if you think there are only one brand of right-wingers. There are libertarians, solely fiscal conservatives, constitutionalists, family values types (the worst type IMO), and so on.

UsernameInUse · 05-02-2012 02:40PM

BOHtox wrote: »

Fine Gael?

The privatisation Fine Gael will be doing (something like €3B ) is a conservative party. They'd hardly be socially right wing as well.

lol...FG, what a joke.

Are Fine Gael going to legalize gay marriage and drugs? What about civil liberties? Oh yeah, I forgot they're on Labours train of internet hate. FG are not even economically conservative. FG are not even in the same universe as an economically conservative party.

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

Comments