Low IQ behind some conservative beliefs

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'm still waiting for the study that looks at the IQ's of internet message board posters vs the rest of the world that has a life.

 

I'd be a crappy non-experiment at best...

 

Holy crap...is that Manhats who is also reading this topic?

[walksalone]

I could see how a low IQ would cause someone to believe on faith alone with a complete absence of evidence, then listen to a charismatic community leader why gays are an abomination and the poor are just lazy.

 

I could see how a person with a low IQ would not want to get their news from a multiple and varied sources, and prefer the network that draped itself in the most rhetoric-filled patriotism.

 

However there are still many issues that a conservative POV can be justified by a high IQ, such as lower taxes, spending reform, and a strong national defense.

 

thats kind of scary coming from a guy who's sig line is...

 

God bless us, every one. You atheists will have to rely on skill and treachery.

[Tree Planter]

Here is the article:

 

 

 

Abstract

 

Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

 

 

 

LINK

[knapplc]

I moved a bunch of posts from this thread. We cannot copy/paste entire articles onto the board. Fair usage rights allow an excerpt and a link, not the whole article.

 

It doesn't become fair usage if you post the whole article in two-paragraph segments.

[Tree Planter]

I moved a bunch of posts from this thread. We cannot copy/paste entire articles onto the board. Fair usage rights allow an excerpt and a link, not the whole article.

 

It doesn't become fair usage if you post the whole article in two-paragraph segments.

 

Most people do not have access to scientific articles without paying a huge price. Psychological Science apparently made that article free, but that is not standard practice. I think that technically speaking, I didn't violate the fair usage rights, since I did break it up and I didn't post the whole article (99% yes).

 

Now, I will give my opinion of the article. Up front: I'm extremely liberal in my politics, but when it comes to science, politics go out the window.

 

To the main UK data (which is the date that really matters), the results are in Table 1. What you see is inferred correlations between latent variables and prejudicial attitudes. Path a is the correlation between g (general measure of intelligence) and right-wing ideology. For the four groups, it ranges from -.15 to -.4. What does this mean? Well, it means that there is a negative correlation between a measure of general intelligence and right-wing ideology. But, is this a meaningful correlation? It is statistically significant, but any deviation from chance is statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. Another way to address this question is to ask what the effect size is and in the case of correlation, we square the correlation to get an estimate of the amount of variation explained by the correlation. In this case, it ranges from 0.025 to .16. So, the correlation does not explain much. Moreover, IQ measure are relatively poor at measuring intelligence. They correlate with school and work performance in the range of about 25% to 50%, with a corresponding effect size of 0.0625 to .25. So, my conclusion is that while there may be a negative statistical relationship between the measure of intelligence and right-wing ideology, it is not meaningful. My conclusion is that being stupid or smart, you are probably just as likely to be a right-winger as not. The same reasoning holds for Path c.

 

Path b, is more troubling. The correlations are much higher ranging from .31 to .69, with corresponding effect sizes of about 0.09 to .48. This suggests that right-wing ideologies do play a meaningful role in prejudicial attitudes. However, I see no meaningful relationship between intelligence and right-wing ideology or prejudicial attitudes.

 

Thus, I have seen nothing to conclude that right-wingers are any stupider than anyone else.

[Cactusboy]

 

 

Most people do not have access to scientific articles without paying a huge price. Psychological Science apparently made that article free, but that is not standard practice. I think that technically speaking, I didn't violate the fair usage rights, since I did break it up and I didn't post the whole article (99% yes).

 

Now, I will give my opinion of the article. Up front: I'm extremely liberal in my politics, but when it comes to science, politics go out the window.

 

To the main UK data (which is the date that really matters), the results are in Table 1. What you see is inferred correlations between latent variables and prejudicial attitudes. Path a is the correlation between g (general measure of intelligence) and right-wing ideology. For the four groups, it ranges from -.15 to -.4. What does this mean? Well, it means that there is a negative correlation between a measure of general intelligence and right-wing ideology. But, is this a meaningful correlation? It is statistically significant, but any deviation from chance is statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. Another way to address this question is to ask what the effect size is and in the case of correlation, we square the correlation to get an estimate of the amount of variation explained by the correlation. In this case, it ranges from 0.025 to .16. So, the correlation does not explain much. Moreover, IQ measure are relatively poor at measuring intelligence. They correlate with school and work performance in the range of about 25% to 50%, with a corresponding effect size of 0.0625 to .25. So, my conclusion is that while there may be a negative statistical relationship between the measure of intelligence and right-wing ideology, it is not meaningful. My conclusion is that being stupid or smart, you are probably just as likely to be a right-winger as not. The same reasoning holds for Path c.

 

Path b, is more troubling. The correlations are much higher ranging from .31 to .69, with corresponding effect sizes of about 0.09 to .48. This suggests that right-wing ideologies do play a meaningful role in prejudicial attitudes. However, I see no meaningful relationship between intelligence and right-wing ideology or prejudicial attitudes.

 

Thus, I have seen nothing to conclude that right-wingers are any stupider than anyone else.

 

That's what I was going to post!

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I moved a bunch of posts from this thread. We cannot copy/paste entire articles onto the board. Fair usage rights allow an excerpt and a link, not the whole article.

 

It doesn't become fair usage if you post the whole article in two-paragraph segments.

 

Most people do not have access to scientific articles without paying a huge price. Psychological Science apparently made that article free, but that is not standard practice. I think that technically speaking, I didn't violate the fair usage rights, since I did break it up and I didn't post the whole article (99% yes).

 

Now, I will give my opinion of the article. Up front: I'm extremely liberal in my politics, but when it comes to science, politics go out the window.

 

To the main UK data (which is the date that really matters), the results are in Table 1. What you see is inferred correlations between latent variables and prejudicial attitudes. Path a is the correlation between g (general measure of intelligence) and right-wing ideology. For the four groups, it ranges from -.15 to -.4. What does this mean? Well, it means that there is a negative correlation between a measure of general intelligence and right-wing ideology. But, is this a meaningful correlation? It is statistically significant, but any deviation from chance is statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. Another way to address this question is to ask what the effect size is and in the case of correlation, we square the correlation to get an estimate of the amount of variation explained by the correlation. In this case, it ranges from 0.025 to .16. So, the correlation does not explain much. Moreover, IQ measure are relatively poor at measuring intelligence. They correlate with school and work performance in the range of about 25% to 50%, with a corresponding effect size of 0.0625 to .25. So, my conclusion is that while there may be a negative statistical relationship between the measure of intelligence and right-wing ideology, it is not meaningful. My conclusion is that being stupid or smart, you are probably just as likely to be a right-winger as not. The same reasoning holds for Path c.

 

Path b, is more troubling. The correlations are much higher ranging from .31 to .69, with corresponding effect sizes of about 0.09 to .48. This suggests that right-wing ideologies do play a meaningful role in prejudicial attitudes. However, I see no meaningful relationship between intelligence and right-wing ideology or prejudicial attitudes.

 

Thus, I have seen nothing to conclude that right-wingers are any stupider than anyone else.

 

I'll just bold this whole part as it is going to relate to what I'm going to say.

 

This test took a qualitative variable [political affiliation] and attempts to tie to IQ [a quantitative variable]. So in this case, a correlation [or r] isn't the statistical measurement which should be used because correlations only measure the relationships between two quantitative variables. Instead, an ANOVA test should be used.