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

[O Grobbecker]

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.

Where does that [bolded part] come from ? You posted an article with a controversial heading but without comment. Any reasonable person would assume that it’s the article that is up for discussion. Being a reasonable person, I critiqued the article and you agreed, it appears, with my critique, or at least with the conclusion I drew. Where have I made any comment on your “entire concept”, let alone assumed that it’s based solely upon your posted article ?

When I posted my critique, I was castigated by Gethelred, who, ironically, approved your post, for posting off topic. Episode IV has already posted a response to your post. Can you two sort out what can or can’t be posted in this thread and let us all know ?

 

[Gethelred]

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 and wisely without comment, taking into account
1. All there is, well that I’ve seen anyway, is the article, some journalist’s extrapolation from an unseen study.
2. The data used to establish level of intelligence is from tests on 10 year olds respectively 40 and 20 years ago and not taking into account education levels or cultural backgrounds at 10 years or since.
3. The data used was collected for the purpose of assessing a child’s development not to predict teh intelligence or otherwise of Conservtives.
4. The applicability of what might be considered by a Canadian psychologist looking at British responses to questions formulated in Britain in 1991 and 2003 to a definition of “Conservative” in the context of contemporary Australian attitudes or values.

You need to reread the OP:

Obviously there's overwhelming research linking stupid people with socially conservative and right wing beliefs. I'm not going to argue this very well established fact here.
My question is why?

This thread is not concerned with whether, but why.

Whether is off topic, as enunciated in the OP. Post on topic, please.

 

[Leeda]

Might be tracking heavily to the 'yes I am less intelligent'... but Hello Gethy... Happy NEW YEAR...

 

[Lethality]

The question at least in the title is about ideology and we shouldn't be surprised that less intelligent types gravitate towards a system of beliefs that aren't built upon a foudation of knowledge. This could be just as likely to occur on the Left, where the more ideological types are less intelligent on that side of the political spectrum.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Post 143 gets it right. Compulsory on topic content.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Post 143 gets it right. Compulsory on topic content.

It's true intelligence is overrated in the sense -

Some aboriginal kids that get parachuted into the middle of no where.

Might survive better. Regardless of ' IQ tests'

 

[Chief]

I’d very cautious about accepting the conclusions drawn by Grin and his gaggle of applauders from the article helpfully posted by Mofra and wisely without comment

Off topic, but why do you write like a 19th century Vicar?

 

[O Grobbecker]

Off topic, but why do you write like a 19th century Vicar?

Because I reckon 18th Century Vicars' writing is too pompous.

 

[Lethality]

You can take drugs if you're worried about your testosterone. Nothing can cure stupid.

A lot can cure stupid, assuming that we're not literally talking about low IQ individuals.

 

[Lethality]

This puts a bit of a hole in the theory.

 

[Episode IV]

This puts a bit of a hole in the theory.

Careful. You're addressing an OT post.
As Gethelred has clearly stated, the rules of this discussion are that you must accept a study conducted in Canada under what appear to be very loose foundations, raise no questions as to its veracity, and argue in "good faith" in support of the premise that its conclusions are an accurate portrayal of reality.
If someone posts a study that says the sky is red and asks why, then you must post only your opinions on why the sky is red, not whether or not it actually is.

Alright. Here's my take:
I'd surmise that if this study has concluded that less intelligent people gravitate toward right wing ideology, it might be that "blending in" to oppressive environments is often seen as the smart thing to do, when one does not have the power or support to fight against it.
When the left, or more accurately the "woke" left of a more extreme persuasion, have begun to assume control of social politics right down to the centres of education, the smart thing to do is pretend you're one of them.

"Smart people", in other words, are often merely blending in with the dominant paradigm in both in order to generate social currency, and to avoid getting their heads shot off. We're approaching another period in history in which intelligent people are very careful to avoid revealing what they really think.
So they're appear to be left leaning.

S'obvious, innit?

 

[Leeda]

Off topic, but why do you write like a 19th century Vicar?

carelule... you risk being Classed as another dwarf...

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Careful. You're addressing an OT post.
As Gethelred has clearly stated, the rules of this discussion are that you must accept a study conducted in Canada under what appear to be very loose foundations, raise no questions as to its veracity, and argue in "good faith" in support of the premise that its conclusions are an accurate portrayal of reality.
If someone posts a study that says the sky is red and asks why, then you must post only your opinions on why the sky is red, not whether or not it actually is.

Alright. Here's my take:
I'd surmise that if this study has concluded that less intelligent people gravitate toward right wing ideology, it might be that "blending in" to oppressive environments is often seen as the smart thing to do, when one does not have the power or support to fight against it.
When the left, or more accurately the "woke" left of a more extreme persuasion, have begun to assume control of social politics right down to the centres of education, the smart thing to do is pretend you're one of them.

"Smart people", in other words, are often merely blending in with the dominant paradigm in both in order to generate social currency, and to avoid getting their heads shot off. We're approaching another period in history in which intelligent people are very careful to avoid revealing what they really think.
So they're appear to be left leaning.

S'obvious, innit?

So going off the recent elections, there's more intelligent people on the left?

 

[Episode IV]

So going off the recent elections, there's more intelligent people on the left?

What have the recent elections got to do with it?

 

[Gethelred]

Careful. You're addressing an OT post.
As Gethelred has clearly stated, the rules of this discussion are that you must accept a study conducted in Canada under what appear to be very loose foundations, raise no questions as to its veracity, and argue in "good faith" in support of the premise that its conclusions are an accurate portrayal of reality.
If someone posts a study that says the sky is red and asks why, then you must post only your opinions on why the sky is red, not whether or not it actually is.

Alright. Here's my take:
I'd surmise that if this study has concluded that less intelligent people gravitate toward right wing ideology, it might be that "blending in" to oppressive environments is often seen as the smart thing to do, when one does not have the power or support to fight against it.
When the left, or more accurately the "woke" left of a more extreme persuasion, have begun to assume control of social politics right down to the centres of education, the smart thing to do is pretend you're one of them.

"Smart people", in other words, are often merely blending in with the dominant paradigm in both in order to generate social currency, and to avoid getting their heads shot off. We're approaching another period in history in which intelligent people are very careful to avoid revealing what they really think.
So they're appear to be left leaning.

S'obvious, innit?

This is my favourite post you've ever made.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

What have the recent elections got to do with it?

Obviously, more intelligent people didn't try to blend in and pretend they were LNP supporters.

 

[Episode IV]

Obviously, more intelligent people didn't try to blend in and pretend they were LNP supporters.

... I tihnk you've missed a few things, but alright I'll play.
Which election, specifically, are we talking about here? Federal?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

... I tihnk you've missed a few things, but alright I'll play.
Which election, specifically, are we talking about here? Federal?

Federal, state. Take your pick.

 

[Episode IV]

Federal, state. Take your pick.

Oh, ok, you mean in Australia. Forgive me, sometimes I find it hard to figure out which country I live in when participating on this board. I swear there are days I think I've moved to California without being aware of it.

But as to my answer, again, it's obvious. The intelligence of the average Australian has increased since 2019.
I have a theory as to why or how, but that would be OT.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Oh, ok, you mean in Australia. Forgive me, sometimes I find it hard to figure out which country I live in when participating on this board. I swear there are days I think I've moved to California without being aware of it.

But as to my answer, again, it's obvious. IQ scores have increased since 2019.
I have a theory as to why or how, but that would be OT.

It's probably all those leftist schools/teachers/universities we keep hearing about.

 

[Grin]

Careful. You're addressing an OT post.
As Gethelred has clearly stated, the rules of this discussion are that you must accept a study conducted in Canada under what appear to be very loose foundations, raise no questions as to its veracity, and argue in "good faith" in support of the premise that its conclusions are an accurate portrayal of reality.
If someone posts a study that says the sky is red and asks why, then you must post only your opinions on why the sky is red, not whether or not it actually is.

Alright. Here's my take:
I'd surmise that if this study has concluded that less intelligent people gravitate toward right wing ideology, it might be that "blending in" to oppressive environments is often seen as the smart thing to do, when one does not have the power or support to fight against it.
When the left, or more accurately the "woke" left of a more extreme persuasion, have begun to assume control of social politics right down to the centres of education, the smart thing to do is pretend you're one of them.

"Smart people", in other words, are often merely blending in with the dominant paradigm in both in order to generate social currency, and to avoid getting their heads shot off. We're approaching another period in history in which intelligent people are very careful to avoid revealing what they really think.
So they're appear to be left leaning.

S'obvious, innit?

Whilst I am in debt to you for adding yet further evidence to the premise of this thread (which it really doesn't need, and specifically asks you not to). This thread's not about if you tend to gravitate to the right, it asks why?

I'm positive that if you put your mind to it and try really really hard to stay focussed on the topic and not be distracted by simplistic straw man arguments, irrational conspiracy theories and 10 minute YouTube videos, you could make a valuable contribution

 

[ElectricG]

I'm positive that if you put your mind to it and try really really hard to stay focussed on the topic and not be distracted by simplistic straw man arguments, irrational conspiracy theories and 10 minute YouTube videos, you could make a valuable contribution

Are you having hallucinations?

 

[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.

 

[Episode IV]

Heh. Pages 38-39 of that study are rather interesting.

I was about to ask if anyone thought about how similar the results of such studies would be if conducted in non-western environments, but it would seem redundant now other than for reasons of observation.

 

[Mofra]

Where does that [bolded part] come from ? You posted an article with a controversial heading but without comment. Any reasonable person would assume that it’s the article that is up for discussion. Being a reasonable person, I critiqued the article and you agreed, it appears, with my critique, or at least with the conclusion I drew. Where have I made any comment on your “entire concept”, let alone assumed that it’s based solely upon your posted article ?

When I posted my critique, I was castigated by Gethelred, who, ironically, approved your post, for posting off topic. Episode IV has already posted a response to your post. Can you two sort out what can or can’t be posted in this thread and let us all know ?

You did say to be careful of drawing conclusions from that one article - inferring that's what people were doing, and ignoring the wide body of work that underpins the position.
You made an incorrect assumption so I called that out.

As for posting on or off topic, I don't mod this board. Did you assume I do?
I sense a pattern here...