Study shows social conservatism linked to lower intelligence (gallon, gasoline, military)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a little behind the times since it is from a few years ago. A researcher looked at political views and tried to link them to intelligence. It wasn't the case that conservatives in general or Republicans had lower intelligence levels, but social conservatives were shown to have lower levels of intelligence. That would include people who vote based on values and not conservative financial principles.
It's an interesting study. In thinking about the outcome, it does make sense to me. I've challenged social conservatives to debates on several fronts (as I do with people of all political mindsets) and in the end when all of their rationalizations are shot down, it all comes back to emotion as their justification. Perhaps these people have a left side of the brain that is weak and thus dominated by the right.
I'd be interested to see if anyone has found any other studies in similar peer reviewed journals.
If conservatives are so stupid, I wonder how I managed to make the Dean's List while taking some courses in the HARD SCIENCES. Oh, and I wonder why I nearly got perfect score on my teacher certification test. Then, there were those above grade level test scores on those standardized tests I took in high school. OH MY!! Did I just prove you wrong??
I think this has been hinted at with the Myers Briggs tests. In that work, the people who prefer to gather their info. via "sensing" often score lower on intelligence tests than "intuitives," who look at facts and try to infer meaning. Sensing folks tend to explain reality based on their past experiences. Intuitive folks tend to try to read trajectories from facts, and to look to the future. There are far more sensing types in any population, but far more intuitives in academia. I think the conservative vs. liberal divide parallels the sensing vs. intuitive divide.
Sensing types, who specialize in facts and practical details make great mechanics, accountants, lawyers, pilots, athletes, bankers, policemen, managers, and just about all jobs that require a detail orientation and a nonwandering mind. They run the world.
Intuitive types, whose strengths are the abilities to infer larger patterns from details and the ability to develop abstract thoughts, make good scholars, scientists, artists, CEOs, entrepreneurs, and inventors. They conceive how the world could be better, often seeing things others have never done before, a la Einstein, Steve Jobs,etc.
We need both, as their skills and perspectives are complementary. That said, the intuitives/liberals tend to dominate in the more intellectually demanding fields. That is not to say that sensing people cannot be very smart, and have a tremendous grasp of well organized facts. Their weakness is not to question their experience or perspective. Introspection is not a sensing specialty. Think about W,"the decider," as an example. He did not do nuance.
Compare that with Obama, is able to weave almost every specific event for which he writes a speech into a larger historical narrative, often brilliantly.
I'm a little behind the times since it is from a few years ago. A researcher looked at political views and tried to link them to intelligence. It wasn't the case that conservatives in general or Republicans had lower intelligence levels, but social conservatives were shown to have lower levels of intelligence. That would include people who vote based on values and not conservative financial principles.
It's an interesting study. In thinking about the outcome, it does make sense to me. I've challenged social conservatives to debates on several fronts (as I do with people of all political mindsets) and in the end when all of their rationalizations are shot down, it all comes back to emotion as their justification. Perhaps these people have a left side of the brain that is weak and thus dominated by the right.
I'd be interested to see if anyone has found any other studies in similar peer reviewed journals.
Well I can't speak for everyone obviously but my IQ is 129 and I'm a conservative all the way around so....
If conservatives are so stupid, I wonder how I managed to make the Dean's List while taking some courses in the HARD SCIENCES. Oh, and I wonder why I nearly got perfect score on my teacher certification test. Then, there were those above grade level test scores on those standardized tests I took in high school. OH MY!! Did I just prove you wrong??
Take a stats class. The individual data point does not disprove a statistical pattern. Usually a statistical difference describes a difference between two means, and with certain standard deviation. It is not unusual for an individual in one group to exceed the mean of another, but if the vast majority of points show the opposite pattern, the general patterns is true.
Relatively few academics are socially conservative. Or for that matter, few are fundamentalist bible thumpers. Is that because only liberals go to college? Or is it because those smart enough to succeed in college are selected and concentrated there, and moreover, they typically realize with a bit of education that our ways of doing things could be considerably improved, and preserving the prejudices of the past is not that laudable. Lastly, after spending a few years reading and listening to highly educated people, they have little tolerance for talk radio blowhards.
Admittedly this is just another anecdote, but involves a few dozen people. I come from a large family of old fashioned American social conservatives. Nearly all the college educated family members are liberal, those with a high school education or less are socially conservative. The smartest are all liberals.
I think it's the other way round. Social conservatism makes people stupid. Seriously though, I'm not sure it's about native intelligence so much as education or lack thereof. People who are socially conservative are likely that way because they didn't have access to a world class education. Had they grown up in better circumstances they could have turned out quite differently.
and you don't think, when a social conservative or any type conservative debates you they do not come out thinking your reasoning is based on emotion and opinion only? I happen to wonder about anyone that would begin to believe liberals are more intelligent than conservatives. This is what often makes some thing libs are narrow minded and judgemental. I happen to think to think there are many highly intelligent people on both sides of the aisle. There are also ding dongs on both sides.
I agree with all of this. When I listen to a liberal, I'm thinking to myself that they're not being practical, they are just out in la-la-land and the ideas they have just make no sense for the real world. Their thinking is very much based on emotions and gut instincts rather than on what will actually work in real life. And I think they are always more quick to judge others, which is confusing since they claim to be so open-minded. But none of this really has to do with intelligence, it's just a different way of thinking. There are different kinds of intelligence, also, so perhaps if someone studied THAT, the conclusion would be more valid.
I think CAVA1990's comment about education is probably more true than absolute intellectual ability. The Scots-Irish of America, who dominate the South and are often the most hardcore social conservatives, are the lowest of the White American ethnic groups in education. The Irish, in contrast, who are racially almost the same, are among the most educated. So, I think the rural culture of many parts of the country is largely the reason many people are less educated, and therefore, socially conservative. The Scots-Irish are emotional and stubborn people, so they are perfect fodder for talk radio demogogues who inflame their ignorance and sense of righteous indignation. With some education, many would likely prove quite bright, and would probably become less socially conservative.
I don't think it's realistic or fair to suggest that intelligence can be correlated to where one exists on a liberal/conservative axis. I do think that, as a group, conservatives have become increasingly fixated on engaging in a class and culture war. This often results in those conservatives devoting most of their intelligence, time, and energy to a very limited number of social issues. One of the results is that many conservatives are well-versed in matters involving (other people's) personal behavior, but have very little knowledge of the broader spectrum of public policy issues affecting the country and the world. Thus, they give the impression of being unintelligent when confronted with those issues. Michelle Bachmann is a perfect example of this. She is, by no means, unintelligent. Yet, she is so slavishly and arrogantly devoted to the beliefs that exist in her own personal world, that she seems woefully unequipped to deal with issues such as national defense, constitutional freedoms, international relations, trade deficits, the realities of a global economy, etc.--I think the days of the "intellectual conservatism" of William F. Buckley and others are long gone for American conservatives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then, there were those above grade level test scores on those standardized tests I took in high school. OH MY!! Did I just prove you wrong??
