Right-wing racists tend to be dumb? That’s a keen bit of science there, and I’m not impressed easily.
[looks out the window]
Oh wow, a blue car!!
Actually, it’s more like “stupid kids who grow up to be conservative tend to be racist”. Who woulda thunk it?
People base opinions on strong correlations all the time. For example, a person in the situation mentioned above would probably start keeping an eye on the paperboy rather than checking the flight paths of airplanes to see if they are getting hit with blue ice. So I guess the word here would be “rational.”
Well in this case scientists tested the correlation and tried to eliminate other variables that might explain it as best they could. That would tend to indicate a strong correlation, as opposed to, “I knew this guy who used to call black people “damn niggers” and then we watched Jeopary together and he never knew ANY of the answers. So, stupid people are bigots.” That would be a weak correlation.
Actually the report also included a study from a professor in Ontario. There were a total of three studies cited. I will grant you the article does not do a very good job of making these things clear. Science writers are stupid!
Not necessarily, if you can make a logical case for those propositions. And some of them you definitely can. Still, it’s an overly broad statement.
I know you’re just making a joke, but it doesn’t even say that. The article doesn’t give enough information to conclude that this group “tends to be racist,” even if we accept their basic assertions at face value.
It’s more like, “stupid kids who grow up to be conservative are more likely, to some unstated extent, to be racist than the average person.” That statement could be true even in a scenario where 99% of the “dumb conservative” tribe is NOT racist. There’s not enough details in this article to support the OP’s happy dance. It really doesn’t say much at all.
Except that’s not what you said. You said he would “think” it without further evidence. So no, rational is not the correct word.
No, it wouldn’t indicate a strong correlation. We don’t have any information from the article other than the use of the word “much”, which doesn’t tell us how strong a correlation there is. In a statistical analysis such as this one, the correlation coefficient is a number, and we don’t know what that number is. We’re talking science here, remember. “Science” was the first word you wrote in staring this thread, but it didn’t take you very long to stray away from science into the realm of conjecture.
Well, you’re smart enough to recognize that, so that’s something*.
*Sorry, I don’t personally have a thing against you; low hanging fruit, and all that.
Anyway, if it indeed is true that bigots tend to be low in intelligence more often than not, that would not be shocking information to me.
I am probably further to the left than most people on this left-leaning board, but I do not take this sort of stuff seriously, and I think it it is kind of dumb for liberals/progressives to crow over it. IQ testing and, a fortiori, tests that attempt to quantify people’s political beliefs and social attitudes are extremely mushy branches of science, only barely worthy of the term, and very much susceptible to investogator bias. In any case, I am sure political and social attitudes are shaped much more by people’s experiences, upbringing and current social and economic situation. Any innate differences either in intelligence or personality are likely to be relatively minor factors.
There may be proportionately more conservatives than liberals who are stupid assholes (although plenty of liberals are that too, and plenty of conservatives, I am sure, are smart and personally decent), but those people are not conservatives because they are stupid assholes, they are stupid assholes because they are conservatives. (Conservatism tends to makes you stupid and assholic not by lowering your innate IQ or innate personality traits, but because the ideology discourages you from being skeptical and questioning of the status quo, and from indulging your more compassionate and prosocial impulses).
The OP had a nice chance of yet another “conservative teh dumb ray-cist” with SCIENCE, but then he admits his very own prejudice with the whole “correlation and causation” thing.
On the other hand, finding that people with low intelligence hold simplistic versions of reality isn’t really headline news.
Stupid racist people are stupid and racist.
Actually, nothing in this story provides any reason why there should be either stupidity or bigotry “riddling” the GOP, as one would tend to presume that agendas and platforms are set by the brighter members of any group, not the less intelligent ones, and nothing in your story asserts a correlation between intelligence, per se, and conservative views, per se.
So, maybe you should come back when you have a better source of information about this utterly irrelevant “study.”
I am not sure why you employed the plural in this statement. Thus far, we have exactly one “liberal/progressive” who is “crowing” about the “study.”
So far:
there has been no evidence presented that conservatives are, on average, more “stupid” than liberals;
there has been no evidence presented that those conservatives who are of lower intelligence who have been deemed prejudiced are not matched in some equally, but different, undesirable trait by liberals with lower intelligence;
and the OP has not found any support for his glee in the seven and a half hours since he threw this joke into GD.
I really do not see a debate, here. No one is denying that bigory is more prevalent among the less intelligent. No one is denying that bigotry, in the manner that it was defined by the study is probably more prevalent on the political Right than on the political Left.
If someone wishes to argue that all forms of bigotry are more prevalent on the Right, they may wish to open a thread, (preferably with genuine citations to actual research), to debate that point. If someone wishes, (for the umpteenth time), to argue the relative intelligence of liberals and conservatives, (preferably with some actual supporting research instead of the typical self-serving claptrap we see in such threads that tend to send them to The BBQ Pit), they may do so.
This thread, however, seems to lack an actual “debate” and, given the “bask[ing] in glory” expressed by the OP for a negligible point expressed in an inflammatory manner, it does not seem to merit a place in Great Debates. (If there is a groundswell of support for the idea, I will consider re-opening it in The BBQ Pit.)
[ /Moderating ]