[Drlee]

As a conservative I am somewhat dismayed by this. But not one least bit surprised.

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.

Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]

"The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists."

Brains and bias

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]

In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

A study of averages

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said.

Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally.

"We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap."

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.

"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

Simple viewpoints

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.

"There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.

If this is true of conservatives, it is a wonder Libertarians are not all working at Burger King. Ding fries are done. Ding fries are done.






http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

[Wolfman]

People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study

Well, no shit. Thanks a lot Yahoo News for catching up to the rest of the world.

[Daktoria]

Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

The problem is hierarchy and resistance to change, not social conservatism. The study is broken right from the start.

If this is true of conservatives, it is a wonder Libertarians are not all working at Burger King. Ding fries are done. Ding fries are done.

I agree.

Coming from a hierarchic and resistant family (which completely sold out social conservative values), I'm very grateful for being a customs broker instead.

[Dave]

Worthless study to make liberals like DrLee feel good about themselves.

Racism is currently unfashionable and smart people want to get ahead, so early on they learn to suppress racism.

If you conducted the same study a century you'd find that smart people were really racist.

But it would be interesting to see the results of such a study in a non-liberal country like China and contrast it to this one.

[Drlee]

Worthless study to make liberals like DrLee feel good about themselves.

Canadian study.

Nice try boy.

[Dave]

What's your point? Liberalism is an international phenomenon and Canada is pretty much America Junior. Racism is just as unfashionable in Canada as it is here.

[Daktoria]

If Dave was a social conservative, he would have realized this study isn't really about racism.

As someone who believes in social hierarchy and is resistant to change, he just proved my point about what social conservatism really is (not).

[grassroots1]

If you conducted the same study a century you'd find that smart people were really racist.

No Dave, this study makes sense because prejudiced thinking is an extremely simple thought process. You see someone who looks different than you, has a different culture than you, you make them an "other" and begin to think they are fundamentally different, inhuman, etc. Smart people a century go may have been racist in many cases. But we've gotten smarter. Many now understand that the basic fundamental similarities that unite us as human beings far outweigh the minor differences that separate us. This isn't just fashionable or convenient, it's true.

But if people such as yourself continue to engender hatred between groups that have no REAL reason to hate each other, we can expect to see lots more dumb, short-sighted racists in the future.

[Dave]

Yeah that is the fashionable view these days, but it's just ideology. Even if you are correct (you're not), that's not why people hold these views.

Did you know that Greeks don't flush toilet paper but actually throw it in the trash next to the toilet? Did you know that in Japan some people eat live octopuses?

Is that more or less important than whatever it is you think unites us?

[Daktoria]

No Dave, this study makes sense because prejudiced thinking is an extremely simple thought process. You see someone who looks different than you, has a different culture than you, you make them an "other" and begin to think they are fundamentally different, inhuman, etc. Smart people a century go may have been racist in many cases. But we've gotten smarter. Many now understand that the basic fundamental similarities that unite us as human beings far outweigh the minor differences that separate us. This isn't just fashionable or convenient, it's true.

But if people such as yourself continue to engender hatred between groups that have no REAL reason to hate each other, we can expect to see lots more dumb, short-sighted racists in the future.

CULTURE IS NOT ETHNICITY. HELLO?

Stop being Marxists in believing historical materialism. Fuckin Christ.

The simplest form of prejudice is PRAGMATISM, NOT RACISM.

[grassroots1]

I believe I am correct. The fundamental similiarities between humans in general outweigh the differences between groups that we define and demarcate. It is also an ideological belief to suggest that this group that you define is different, better, worse, than another group that you define. I agree, the question is why hold beliefs that divide us instead of ones that unite us?

Greeks not flushing toilet paper and Japanese people eating live octupi, these are cultural differences.

Daktoria I have no idea what the hell you're saying.

[Dave]

Of course you believe you are correct, otherwise you wouldn't hold your views. It would be pretty fucked up if you believed you were wrong but stuck to your guns regardless.

How can you even define whether or not our similarities outweigh our differences? You can't, because a quantitative comparison is not possible. We can define groups of people and gather data about them and compare the statistics of one group to another, but this process still doesn't allow us to determine whether or not your contention is true.

Your belief is a subjective one, period. It thus comes down to ideology. You can make the case that your belief system will be better...which is also subjective. That's fine, have at it, but if want to discuss what's correct then it needs to be something that can be objectively verified.

I can tell you objectively that white people are more likely than black people to suffer from osteoporosis regardless of environment, and you can tell me objectively that blacks and whites have, I don't know, sweat glands in common. What does this information tell us?

[Daktoria]

GR, people choose their culture. It isn't something that's ethnically bestowed upon us.

Yes, we're disposed towards certain cultures according to our genes, community, and environment, but we can CHOOSE another path. We don't HAVE to get sucked into vicious cycles.

The only reason vicious cycles perpetuate is because of PRAGMATISM. People choose short sighted social strategies, and they steal from anyone who saves and invests time towards long term reform.

Do you get what I'm saying now?

[Rainbow Crow]

This study has rocked my world, my life will never be the same because none of this has ever occurred to me before and yet now it is all falling into place...

[xsited1]

People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study

Well, no shit. Thanks a lot Yahoo News for catching up to the rest of the world.

So true.

Here are a couple funny comments from the link in the OP:

Consuming Yahoo news leads to lower IQ.

Yeah, another study. Have you ever noticed studies end results are exactly as whoever funded the project want them to be?

But what really made me LOL was to read that DrLee is concerned about this study. Damn racist conservatives!

[Smertios]

Did you know that Greeks don't flush toilet paper but actually throw it in the trash next to the toilet?

The civilized part of the world does that, considering we know having non-organic/biodegradable material diposed in the sewers is going to make the treatment system less effective. Flushing the paper is a terrible idea...

[grassroots1]

How can you even define whether or not our similarities outweigh our differences? You can't, because a quantitative comparison is not possible. We can define groups of people and gather data about them and compare the statistics of one group to another, but this process still doesn't allow us to determine whether or not your contention is true.

Your belief is a subjective one, period. It thus comes down to ideology.

At one time we used skull size and other bogus measurements to justify separating ourselves from other groups of human beings, but since then we have proven that biologically we are fundamentally the same. There is not one gene in common among one race that differentiaties it from another. I can be as genetically different from my white neighbor as I can be from an Iraqi halfway across the world, because most genetic variation exists within human populations and not between them. This is a fact, not a subjective opinion.

Anti-racism is a philosophy of human unity and I frankly see no value in adopting any ideology that scapegoats any group of thinking, breathing, feeling human beings. I would much rather treat people as individuals than separate them into groups and treat them in a prejudiced way.

Do you get what I'm saying now?

Not really. Where did I suggest that culture is ethnically bestowed on us?

[Dave]

The civilized part of the world does that, considering we know having non-organic/biodegradable material diposed in the sewers is going to make the treatment system less effective. Flushing the paper is a terrible idea...

Yeah what could be more civilized than shit-stained toilet paper in the trash smelling like shit

Waste treatment systems in Northern Europe and its offshoots work very well, thank you.

At one time we used skull size and other bogus measurements to justify separating ourselves from other groups of human beings, but since then we have proven that biologically we are fundamentally the same.

Said measurements have been confirmed as accurate by modern reviews of the data and methodology. Stephen Jay Gould engaged in academic fraud when reviewing Morton's research to support his findings.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.1001071

What does fundamentally the same even mean? That's not a scientific term, but a subjective one you use to legitimize your ideology.

There is not one gene in common among one race that differentiaties it from another. I can be as genetically different from my white neighbor as I can be from an Iraqi halfway across the world, because most genetic variation exists within human populations and not between them. This is a fact, not a subjective opinion.

Lewontin fallacy. As soon as you expand analysis to as few as two loci misidentifying population groups becomes nearly impossible in the manner in which you described.

Anti-racism is a philosophy of human unity and I frankly see no value in adopting any ideology that scapegoats any group of thinking, breathing, feeling human beings. I would much rather treat people as individuals than separate them into groups and treat them in a prejudiced way.

Yes, we all know that this is what you believe. By the way, despite being wrong about skull measurements and wrong about population genetics it doesn't make your ideology wrong. This reinforces my point about subjectivity.

[Smertios]

Yeah what could be more civilized than shit-stained toilet paper in the trash smelling like shit

Waste treatment systems in Northern Europe and its offshoots work very well, thank you.

Of course it works well. It just costs a lot more, thanks to that, since extra steps are needed in the treatment process. Most people flushing their toilets have no idea how complicated the treatment process is, after that...

[grassroots1]

Said measurements have been confirmed as accurate by modern reviews of the data and methodology. Stephen Jay Gould engaged in academic fraud when reviewing Morton's research to support his findings.

This is ridiculous. Phrenology and skull measurements do not correspond to intelligence or other genetic factors. Morton's attempt to set Anglo Americans apart from other groups was misguided, even according to the authors of the study you just cited.

In reevaluating Morton and Gould, we do not dispute that racist views were unfortunately common in 19th-century science [6] or that bias has inappropriately influenced research in some cases [16]. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that modern human variation is generally continuous, rather than discrete or “racial,” and that most variation in modern humans is within, rather than between, populations [11],[17]. In particular, cranial capacity variation in human populations appears to be largely a function of climate, so, for example, the full range of average capacities is seen in Native American groups, as they historically occupied the full range of latitudes [18]. It is thus with substantial reluctance that we use various racial labels, but it is impossible to discuss Morton and Gould's work without using the terms they employed.

So of course those measurements were not "accurate" in the sense that they were not a measurement of anything but the size of your skull. It is not an accurate measure of intelligence. Phrenology is bs.

Lewontin fallacy. As soon as you expand analysis to as few as two loci misidentifying population groups becomes nearly impossible in the manner in which you described.

What does this mean?

We have empirically and scientifically moved steadily closer to the conclusion that human beings are in large part the same and that race has little geneti implication.