Daily Mail: Right wingers are less intelligent and more racist than Left wingers

[Traitorfish]

Link to video.

Funny thing about populism, the majority is always on your side, regardless of what that side is.

 

[Glassfan]

You're certainly a defensive lot, that much is being made pretty clear. Maybe that's the real study, to see how you'd react to this sort of "discovery".

Edit: "Do we not have Internet access"? Pardon?

It's natural to get defensive when you're being insulted. I suppose you are above this.



This was popular here on the Forums a year or two ago.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Daily Fail/Wail?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That depends on what you view as simplicity. The Right does often come with ridiculously complicated theories about multiculturalism and the difference between ethnicities, religions and cultures, while the left has fairly simple and straightforward answers to these namely, that these do not really matter that much.

Rationalizations of policy can get fairly complicated in every political spectrum, no doubt. But I am talking about typical core talking points and their implications. And there I can see a certain drive for simple solutions in the political right.

This is an interesting hypothetical. In some alternate universe, where stupidity causes left wing views rather than right wing views, would left wing papers publish a study discovering this truth? In this bizarro, mirror universe, where stupid people weren't more likely to become right wingers, would the left wing media report this? I don't know the answer to that. And it will always be a hypothetical question, seeing as stupidity leads to right wing political views. But it's worth considering.

Indeed, I'd like to extend the question: What would the world be like if stupidity didn't lead to homophobia or racism? Would the world be a better place if stupidity instead led to tolerance and acceptance of minority groups?

Well played

Stupid people adapt to the modern world by clinging to those evolved responses; smart people develop new responses to adapt to the modern world.

Well, yes, it is not an unreasonable way to view the difference between stupid and smart.

Conservativism is rooted in both an unwillingness and eventual failure to adapt to evolutionarily novel situations.

I think this has in so far merrit as that it describes the evolutionary core of conservationist ideology decently. The problem however is, that an individual may not actually think along those lines, but just finds Conservatism to present viable solution - be it by coincidence. Likewise, a lift-wing progressive may be drawn to progressive left-wing policy for pure idealogical reasons, where this ideology represent an evolved and fixed response which cripples the individuals ability to keep "adapting".
Which means that what makes someone stupid most of all is to be an ideologist - i.e. someone who sticks to an "evolved (ideological) response" - instead of constantly trying "to adapt", i.e. reevaluating one's owns views and their basis on a regular basis and thinking beyond ideological lines.
So we have two different levels here. The fundamental character of a political spectrum and the individual's cause to support it. And where I agree with your quote is that the fundamental character of conservatism broadly represents what it means to be stupid, yet, the actual policies must not be. On the other hand progressiveness broadly represent what it means to be smart, but way less so than conservatism represent stupidity, because progressive policies quickly transform in its own kind of traditional ideology. Again, what according to this definition means to be smart is pragmatic, constantly adapting policy, rather than ideological determined policy. Realpolitik.
On the second level, how smart or stupid the individual is is of course impossible to tell, because it, well, depends on the individual and as said its actual motivation to support a political spectrum. But the character of conservatism will likely attracts more stupid people, which leaves us with what the study claims.

That would be my take

 

[warpus]

Now you intellectuals may not like it
but there ain't nothin' that you can do
Cause there's a whole lot
more of us common-folks
then there ever will be of you

Too bad that the opposite of intellectual isn't common-folk, but dumbass

 

[Traitorfish]

It's natural to get defensive when you're being insulted. I suppose you are above this.

It's not the reaction to being insulted, it's the fact that you think you're being insulted when you're not. The study suggests that low intelligence exerts a rightward influence on people's politics, not that right-wing politics are themselves indicative of low intelligence, and it was reported by a newspaper which is actually quite heavily inclined towards right-wing politics itself. That's not something that can be reasonably construed as an insult.

View attachment 313155

This was popular here on the Forums a year or two ago.

Oh, heh, fair dos.

Too bad that the opposite of intellectual isn't common-folk, but dumbass

Link to video.

 

[Murky]

So why did the Mail post this article? Are they looking for a free pass? "Sorry, we're just too dumb to understand."

We're so dumb we:

• Don't believe in 'evil-ution'
• Don't accept anthropogenic global warming
• Are against Gay Marriage
• Don't want to tax the rich to feed the poor
• Don't want universal health care

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It's not the reaction to being insulted, it's the fact that you think you're being insulted when you're not. The study suggests that low intelligence exerts a rightward influence on people's politics, not that right-wing politics are themselves indicative of low intelligence

Er... I don't get it. If dumb people prefer right-wing politics, it does not mean that if you prefer right-wing politics you are more likely to be dumb?
I appreciate the effort to not offend right-wingers (because seriously, you shouldn't be, as you individually may have very very oh world-shattering smartness in your motivation to be right-wing, I hope I won't feel the need to repeat this again), but that does not make any sense to me.

 

[aelf]

Lots of common folk are intelligent, although their socio-economic/class background (and the associated prejudices) may impede them from using their intelligence on a daily basis. The notion that common folk must be stupid is an excuse for keeping them down (and an oft-touted reason for why they should support their betters, who are looking to protect their interests against an 'intellectual elite' who don't understand their concerns), which is why it's so popular in various brands of elitist politics like those espoused by the Republicans and the British Conservatives.

 

[Glassfan]

'In psychological terms, the relation between intelligence and prejudice may stem from the propensity of individuals with lower cognitive ability to endorse more right wing conservative ideologies because such ideologies offer a psychological sense of stability and order.'

da i don get it but fele safe

 

[Cutlass]

The study seems to have more do with social values (regarding gays, multiculturalism etc.) than economics. In other words, what the political compass would call libertarianism vs. authoritarianism, which you have pointed out already.

It's indeed a total myth that the Right is purely pro-market and the Left purely anti-market, since there are many instances in where the Left supports free market policies (like deregulation of small businesses and tax cuts for the poor) and instances where the Right supports government intervention (like agricultural subsidies, corporate bailouts and tax deductions for the wealth). Both support government intervention: The question is how they will use it.

The term "free market" is essentially useless in discussing issues like this. (In fact, it's probably useless in discussing any issues). Economic conservatism, as practiced in the US at any rate, is deeply authoritarian, no matter how many times they attach the word "free" to it. It is about a power relationship where those who have the economic power can do whatsoever they please, and those without economic power do what they are told to do. It doesn't allow for any actual freedom except at the very top.

More to the point on economic issues I've become increasingly convinced that large portions of conservatives truly do see economics as a Zero-Sum-Game. And that in and of itself demonstrates lower intelligence. People oppose welfare because they see anything going to someone else as being taken from them. People oppose organized labor for the same reasons. All of Supply Side Economics is Zero-Sum, because it is about the distribution of wealth, and not the creation of it. And in many other aspects of economic policy the more conservative people behave as though they fundamentally see the world as Zero-Sum-Game. So to the extent that the UK views on economics are similar to the American views on economics, economic conservatism would logically be associated with lower intelligence as well.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well now, I've pondered and pondered this brain-hurtin' study and I have finally come up with the bestest response for all you uppity 'smart' types! Yessir!


Link to video.


So yeah...neener neener neener!

Yeah, who can stand those educated folk, whatwith their thinkin's and readin's and questionin' stuff!

Fun fact, V. I'm a born and raised redneck. Grew up playing in tobacco fields, listening to country and bluegrass, and eating the food my dad grew. I have a southern drawl. What does that do to your stereotype now?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So what exactly is the point here? Even if conservatives are less intelligent than liberals, what does that mean beyond the implied insult? Are we somehow unimportant, do our votes not count? Do we not have Internet access?

I'm glad you ask, since I do feel there is a point here. First I have some things to unpack. Conservatives are not less intelligent than liberals. Study might show averages, but that in no way reflects to any one individual in either group.

The point here might be that many conservative/right wing whatever you label it, ideology tends to be reasoned towards 'common sense', or gutfeeling. It's more prone to be emotionally based than left-wing/liberal views. Marginally of course. This again is not a sharp black and white divide. Lots of left wing views will suffer the same emotionally based reasoning, lots of right wing views are intelligent and nuanced.

I'm not sure but the tendency towards prejudice might rise from lack of exposure to other cultures. I have heard that big cities are leaning left, while country side folk are leaning right. And what you don't know or encounter on a regular basis is prone to prejudice.

You do make a good point towards the implied insult, since the easy thing to do from a left-wing point of view is regard the right-wing as stupid and prejudiced based on this study, so in that regard the study itself does level the playing field a little

Disclaimer: No absolutes were harmed in making this post.

 

[bhsup]

It was kinda meant in jest, Cheezy. But hey man, if you're feeling guilty about being an Uncle Tom, feel free to share your feelings. Maybe we can help you.

 

[Tahuti]

The term "free market" is essentially useless in discussing issues like this. (In fact, it's probably useless in discussing any issues). Economic conservatism, as practiced in the US at any rate, is deeply authoritarian, no matter how many times they attach the word "free" to it. It is about a power relationship where those who have the economic power can do whatsoever they please, and those without economic power do what they are told to do. It doesn't allow for any actual freedom except at the very top.

More to the point on economic issues I've become increasingly convinced that large portions of conservatives truly do see economics as a Zero-Sum-Game. And that in and of itself demonstrates lower intelligence. People oppose welfare because they see anything going to someone else as being taken from them. People oppose organized labor for the same reasons. All of Supply Side Economics is Zero-Sum, because it is about the distribution of wealth, and not the creation of it. And in many other aspects of economic policy the more conservative people behave as though they fundamentally see the world as Zero-Sum-Game. So to the extent that the UK views on economics are similar to the American views on economics, economic conservatism would logically be associated with lower intelligence as well.

Don't tell me: Virtually all badly informed economic opinions imply the belief that economy is a zero-sum game and in practice benefit only the few as well. Whether it is economic protectionism or decreasing taxes for no good reason.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It is not-worthy that the opposite view - that economics is never in no dimension zero-sum - is dumb, too.

 

[Tahuti]

It is not-worthy that the opposite view - that economics is never in no dimension zero-sum - is dumb, too.

Of course, there are limited resources and in that aspect, economics is a zero-sum game: But since everyone knows that, it seldom proves to be a problem. However, in terms of welfare (as in well-being), economies can grow indefinitely, since economies are not solely material.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Economics are solely material in their foundations, of course and that means the overall growth potential is materially determined. But that's besides the point as we are not really in danger of running out of our material base in general.
Now I am not sure you understand the scope and implications of limited resources, which are not just natural resources, but stuff like time and physical as well as mental man power, too. Which leads to limits on markets in general, on supply and demand in particular and to stuff ready to be grabbed and secured. Which is what a free market is about, really. To grab what share of those limited resources you can get for your personal benefit. Sure, some outputs of those limited resources have potential for growth and that is important to keep in mind, but always determined by the limited resources. So those influence literally everything, hence your statement that this weren't a problem because people are aware of it is not very sensible, as we also need to exactly understand how those limits shape economies.

edit: Which is to the say - this not a zero-sum-game talk refers to the relativity of the by me mentioned outputs. But the inputs, those raw resources transformed into market goods - are solely determined by fixed limitations (whose extend may change over time, though) and hence are the essence of a zero-sum-game. And to understand economics, we naturally need to understand both sides of the equation.

 

[Tahuti]

So those influence literally everything, hence your statement that this weren't a problem because people are aware of it is not very sensible, as we also need to exactly understand how those limits shape economies.

I do, and despite my cynicism in general, I do think most others would understand as well. Few people for instance do not realize how much oil shapes our current economy and supply shocks in that resource would destabilize it, as it did in the early 1970s.

 

[luiz]

Don't tell me: Virtually all badly informed economic opinions imply the belief that economy is a zero-sum game and in practice benefit only the few as well. Whether it is economic protectionism or decreasing taxes for no good reason.

It cuts both ways: people who advocate very high tax rates as a means of generating revenue usually fail to understand the dynamic economic effects of doing so, which will harm economic growth and may even result in lower revenues.

I insist, this study said nothing about economic views. Nothing at all.