Society/Culture Why do less intelligent people gravitate to conservative/right wing ideology.

[Mofra]

The Daily Mail article reports upon a study by Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario, Canada. (another Canadian Academic Psychologist but without a youtube presence). He looked at data from 2 UK studies testing child development. The subjects were
(a) 4,267 boys and 4,537 girls born in 1958;
(b) 3,412 boys and 3,658 girls born in 1970.

The tests were of
(c) verbal and non verbal intelligence; and
(d) cognitive abilities (number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words).

In both surveys, 23 years later, the same groups were asked to answer a series of questions about traditions, authority and attitudes toward other races. Hodson then postulated a definition of conservatism which is undefined but looks to be based upon attitudes towards Authority and other races and concluded that low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservtive ideologies.

I’d very cautious about accepting the conclusions drawn by Grin and his gaggle of applauders from the article helpfully posted by Mofra

So would I.

Here's a meta-analysis that's far more wide ranging.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55893129.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiZksKNiq38AhWmwjgGHVyFAdQQFnoECC0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2xHhvNmp4MW8yHxMsywA_c

There is a significant body of work on the subject. Assuming the entire concept is based off a single study is folly.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The mean IQ difference between progressives and conservatives isn't huge, and the spread of IQ away from the mean ensures many progressives are less intelligent than even the average conservative.

If it's just a troll, fair enough. If nearly every progressive posting here thinks they're more intelligent than conservatives, they clearly overestimate their own abilities. That's almost a statistical certainty unless you think SRP posters are far more intelligent than the general public.

Fiscal conservatism and some aspects of social conservatism too. Not all 'progress' is good.

evolved1 was both more progressive, and more intelligent than evolved2.

Why did you shoot him in the foot?

 

[Chief]

If nearly every progressive posting here thinks they're more intelligent than conservatives, they clearly overestimate their own abilities.

I'm standing right here, dude!

 

[evolved2]

evolved1 was both more progressive, and more intelligent than evolved2.

Why did you shoot him in the foot?

Too much alcohol kills brain cells.

 

[CM86]

I mean, it's really a HIV vs AIDS argument at this point... You still don't want either at all.

I think there is an important distinction.

On the 'left/progressive/woke/whatever' side, you have people instantly distancing and making excuses for previously supporting a person or body that suddenly becomes 'anti-science'.
On the 'right/coalition/republican/more specific' side, you have people either excusing/supporting/embracing their 'anti-science' positions.
Earthquakes, solar eclipse etc.


Rant in spoiler.

I think this is why transgenderism is so big. Because it's one of the last bastions of anti-straight/white/religious/male, that cannot currently be completely dismissed with basic levels of science.


And it's why we're seeing the same arguments/resistance that we've seen throughout history. Smoking/renewable energy. Climate change still has 'skeptics' who will still argue "The Hockey Stick Illusion" based on the massively spread disinformation.
It's the same with transgenderism.


And even though we all know the billionaires fund it. We pretend it's the individual that we need to destroy, to 'save the masses'.

 

[peetoo]

In the Australia Day pile on, there were left commentators who thought ab]nd shared that James cool led the first fleetin 1788, which in fact is not true, so intelligence does not always follow this rule

 

[The Unforgiven]

In the Australia Day pile on, there were left commentators who thought ab]nd shared that James cool led the first fleetin 1788, which in fact is not true, so intelligence does not always follow this rule

Intelligence and education are two different concepts.

They're not entirely uncorrelated, and there's an intrinsic link between the two, insofar that intelligent people are usually more educated. However, being ignorant of basic history doesn't render someone stupid.

It's definitely stupid to demonstrate one's ignorance (wilfully or otherwise) as it's counter-intuitive to one's goal, undermining their own legitimacy to the cause.

But, for mine at least, I see it as a case of putting the cart before the horse by espousing a position without basic fact-checking first. In a way it's a form of arrogance; I'm right, so trifling details don't really matter in the grand scheme.

 

[NSWCROW]

Couldn't find anywhere else to put it

 

[Chief]

Pro- or anti-swallowing?

 

[Grin]

'The Antisocial Network' on Netflix provides an answer to the question. It's about the rise of 4chan and Anonymous and how 4chan/8chan and Qanon became a honeypot for people who, quite reasonably feel marginalised, but are gullible and stupid enough to fall for conspiracy theories that not even their creators took seriously. Who eventually were, and continue to be conned into voting for those who would marginalise them even further.

A fascinating doco and well worth watching.

 

[the_interloper]

House conservatives unleash FART to guard their power

The somewhat secretive House Freedom Caucus couldn't stay completely silent about a potentially deadly threat to their control.

www.businessinsider.com

This is one of the best things I’ve seen lately, just amazing

 

[Siberiantiger]

'The Antisocial Network' on Netflix provides an answer to the question. It's about the rise of 4chan and Anonymous and how 4chan/8chan and Qanon became a honeypot for people who, quite reasonably feel marginalised, but are gullible and stupid enough to fall for conspiracy theories that not even their creators took seriously. Who eventually were, and continue to be conned into voting for those who would marginalise them even further.

A fascinating doco and well worth watching.

I can explain it. I'll only do it once because I've never been on this society and politics forum before and am not coming back:

Why do right-wingers fall for crazy conspiracy theories?

Because the creators of the crazy conspiracy theories took the theories seriously when they created them.

That's because they were seriously meant to be crazy, so as to discredit the crazy but serious truth by association.

That's because some seemingly crazy conspiracy theories are actually true.

Thus, conspiracy theorists are fed rubbish about aliens and a flat Earth to destroy the credibility of the moon landing footage being faked, for example. Which it was. By Kubrick.

How do I know? Real conspiracies need conspirators who can help implement the conspiracy. Sometimes they make mistakes and recruit the wrong ones. Assange was recruited as a child. He resisted as an adult and told the truth (parts of it). When I was tentatively approached as a young adult after a misunderstanding, I played along with it long enough to learn things that were quite dangerous to know (which is not a way of claiming to be like Assange for he was in the cult behind it all, I wasnt).

Right-wingers believe a mixture of truth and lies spread by the cult. So do left-wingers.

That documentary would be a work of the cult*. Believe it and you've been conned, just as those who believe in Qanon, MAGA and Fascism etc have been conned.

Both sides of politics attract the gullible. That's partly what they're for, to ensure gullibility.

The person who tried to recruit me was a Liberal. The fact I was in Labor didn't matter.

They created the left-right divide to also divide and conquer.

It works, because 99.99% of people being told this truth shall not believe it.

Just like the readers of this truth right here (from a witness, not a theorist) shall not.

* Conspiracy theorists are right when they say the mainstream media is entirely untrustworthy. However, so is their beloved independent media. There is no media which is trustworthy.

 

[barreness]

I can explain it. I'll only do it once because I've never been on this society and politics forum before and am not coming back:

Why do right-wingers fall for crazy conspiracy theories?

Because the creators of the crazy conspiracy theories took the theories seriously when they created them.

That's because they were seriously meant to be crazy, so as to discredit the crazy but serious truth by association.

That's because some seemingly crazy conspiracy theories are actually true.

Thus, conspiracy theorists are fed rubbish about aliens and a flat Earth to destroy the credibility of the moon landing footage being faked, for example. Which it was. By Kubrick.

How do I know? Real conspiracies need conspirators who can help implement the conspiracy. Sometimes they make mistakes and recruit the wrong ones. Assange was recruited as a child. He resisted as an adult and told the truth (parts of it). When I was tentatively approached as a young adult after a misunderstanding, I played along with it long enough to learn things that were quite dangerous to know (which is not a way of claiming to be like Assange for he was in the cult behind it all, I wasnt).

Right-wingers believe a mixture of truth and lies spread by the cult. So do left-wingers.

That documentary would be a work of the cult*. Believe it and you've been conned, just as those who believe in Qanon, MAGA and Fascism etc have been conned.

Both sides of politics attract the gullible. That's partly what they're for, to ensure gullibility.

The person who tried to recruit me was a Liberal. The fact I was in Labor didn't matter.

They created the left-right divide to also divide and conquer.

It works, because 99.99% of people being told this truth shall not believe it.

Just like the readers of this truth right here (from a witness, not a theorist) shall not.

* Conspiracy theorists are right when they say the mainstream media is entirely untrustworthy. However, so is their beloved independent media. There is no media which is trustworthy.

Kubrick was such a stickler for authenticity that he insisted on shooting on location

 

[evolved2]

I can explain it. I'll only do it once because I've never been on this society and politics forum before and am not coming back:

Why do right-wingers fall for crazy conspiracy theories?

Because the creators of the crazy conspiracy theories took the theories seriously when they created them.

That's because they were seriously meant to be crazy, so as to discredit the crazy but serious truth by association.

That's because some seemingly crazy conspiracy theories are actually true.

Thus, conspiracy theorists are fed rubbish about aliens and a flat Earth to destroy the credibility of the moon landing footage being faked, for example. Which it was. By Kubrick.

How do I know? Real conspiracies need conspirators who can help implement the conspiracy. Sometimes they make mistakes and recruit the wrong ones. Assange was recruited as a child. He resisted as an adult and told the truth (parts of it). When I was tentatively approached as a young adult after a misunderstanding, I played along with it long enough to learn things that were quite dangerous to know (which is not a way of claiming to be like Assange for he was in the cult behind it all, I wasnt).

Right-wingers believe a mixture of truth and lies spread by the cult. So do left-wingers.

That documentary would be a work of the cult*. Believe it and you've been conned, just as those who believe in Qanon, MAGA and Fascism etc have been conned.

Both sides of politics attract the gullible. That's partly what they're for, to ensure gullibility.

The person who tried to recruit me was a Liberal. The fact I was in Labor didn't matter.

They created the left-right divide to also divide and conquer.

It works, because 99.99% of people being told this truth shall not believe it.

Just like the readers of this truth right here (from a witness, not a theorist) shall not.

* Conspiracy theorists are right when they say the mainstream media is entirely untrustworthy. However, so is their beloved independent media. There is no media which is trustworthy.

Conspiracy theorists occasionally have an ounce of truth and take it to the extreme. Take 9/11 for example - the conspiracy theory requires an incompetent government to manage a project with many working parts and people to the nth degree, and somehow keep them ALL from talking.

Conspiracy theorists often claim to know more about the science and engineering involved than actual experts in their fields. As someone with many years experience in pharma, I can assure you conspiracy theorists are so far off the mark that it's amusing to me...or am I part of the conspiracy???

 

[peetoo]

Have conspiracy theories been concocted to cover ip a real conspiracy? Lots of times I bet

 

[the_interloper]

Conspiracy theorists occasionally have an ounce of truth and take it to the extreme. Take 9/11 for example - the conspiracy theory requires an incompetent government to manage a project with many working parts and people to the nth degree, and somehow keep them ALL from talking.

Conspiracy theorists often claim to know more about the science and engineering involved than actual experts in their fields. As someone with many years experience in pharma, I can assure you conspiracy theorists are so far off the mark that it's amusing to me...or am I part of the conspiracy???

It's kind of easy to create a conspiracy theory when there's a big event or disaster. You look at the outcome and invent a story as to how it got there, often fitting some sort of pre existing narrative.

I mean during COVID the lockdowns gave the conspiracy theorists an outcome they'd already probably predicted, we're all going to be govt controlled eventually, ID cards, tracking of whereabouts, the great reset etc

 

[peetoo]

It's kind of easy to create a conspiracy theory when there's a big event or disaster. You look at the outcome and invent a story as to how it got there, often fitting some sort of pre existing narrative.

I mean during COVID the lockdowns gave the conspiracy theorists an outcome they'd already probably predicted, we're all going to be govt controlled eventually, ID cards, tracking of whereabouts, the great reset etc

Even 15 minute cities is ‘conspiracy’, which in the Australian context is “if developers are going to build anonymous housing way out from amenities, there’s a social price to pay, do better’

 

[Chief]

Even 15 minute cities is ‘conspiracy’, which in the Australian context is “if developers are going to build anonymous housing way out from amenities, there’s a social price to pay, do better’

UK version is "we built these roads for horse and carriage traffic - ride a bike the two blocks to Sainsbury's".

 

[burge13]

I want to create a conspiracy theory that spreads like wild fire. The first guy who came up with 'flat earth' must laugh his **** off at the local with his mates now

I think crypto was created by the government to push us towards 'you'll own nothing and be happy'. Every legitimate dollar is a dollar out of circulation and essentially burnt by the government. We'll have a world bank within 10 years

They sent Greta out to make wildly incorrect claims about the climate to get people arguing (worked well). Threw the public off the big picture of trying to kill off fiat. Any talk of government legitimizing crypto just feeds the circus to get more and more dollars put into the system to kill off. Look into it

 

[Chief]

Get this on TikTok now!

 

[evolved2]

It's kind of easy to create a conspiracy theory when there's a big event or disaster. You look at the outcome and invent a story as to how it got there, often fitting some sort of pre existing narrative.

I mean during COVID the lockdowns gave the conspiracy theorists an outcome they'd already probably predicted, we're all going to be govt controlled eventually, ID cards, tracking of whereabouts, the great reset etc

We know governments, social media, smart tech and the like have taken away privacy - you don't need to delve into craziness to find the evidence.

Same with Pharma - the end goal is share price over and above making people well.

I'd rather we focus on real problems and solutions rather than hypotheticals that have insufficient objective evidence to warrant belief.

 

[the_interloper]

We know governments, social media, smart tech and the like have taken away privacy - you don't need to delve into craziness to find the evidence.

Same with Pharma - the end goal is share price over and above making people well.

I'd rather we focus on real problems and solutions rather than hypotheticals that have insufficient objective evidence to warrant belief.

My point is that the conspiracy theories are invented around these things, I agree, we don't have much privacy these days. But it's a symptom of a very connected society, not some grand scheme to control the population (I don't think anyway).

 

[faible]

My point is that the conspiracy theories are invented around these things, I agree, we don't have much privacy these days. But it's a symptom of a very connected society, not some grand scheme to control the population (I don't think anyway).

People don't like chaos and randomness. Conspiracy theories are appealing in the same way Religion is appealing in that it provides explanation and meaning to the randomness in the world (thus why there's a high correlation between belief in creationism and belief in conspiracy theories).

If <insert major and traumatic event> is random then it's hard for some people to process that. If it's part of some kind of overarching plot that explains a bunch of other things - no matter how tenuously linked - then it's a lot easier to process.

There's been studies done on just how long people can keep a secret a secret, based on how many people know. It's not very long, and it's less long the more people you add.

You only have to look at Epstein for a real conspiracy theory, there was rumours around about him for decades including multiple investigations and coverups. This is what happens, people talk, things leak.

 

[evolved2]

My point is that the conspiracy theories are invented around these things, I agree, we don't have much privacy these days. But it's a symptom of a very connected society, not some grand scheme to control the population (I don't think anyway).

While I don't disagree, I also view the amount of information available to and tracking measures used by corporations and governments as extremely concerning. It's also unnecessary.

I seem to be a minority voice on the losing side there. Dunno if that makes me a dumb RWNJ or not.

 

[Chief]

While I don't disagree, I also view the amount of information available to and tracking measures used by corporations and governments as extremely concerning. It's also unnecessary.

I seem to be a minority voice on the losing side there. Dunno if that makes me a dumb RWNJ or not.

This is a valid concern. It's large businesses abusing technology with laws yet to catch up.

Linking it to some grand plan is where the tin foil comes out.

 

[Gough]

Ralph Babet providing support for the proposition. I'm not sure whether calling your constituents idiots is a great way to get yourself re-elected though.