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

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I've heard this before. Thieves who live off taxes claim that, because some small fraction of their ill-gotten gains go back to the state, this somehow means that they actually aren't thieves!!

No. You don't pay taxes. You live off them. Full stop. State payrolls are theft. And the "vocations" state theft supports are still more theft.

I thought Cheezy works as a cook.

Quite right. For a privately-owned company. I don't get a dime from the state, even though I can't afford health insurance. But thank the Lord I've been barred from unfairly taking a few dollars from millionaires if I need surgery (like the one I'm getting this week on my mouth, which I'm fortunate enough to have parents who can help me out on).

 

[Hygro]

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?

Perhaps the dumb accepting humans would have been edged out of the genepool by successful smart outsiders capitalizing on their acceptance, so the surviving dumb humans were the ones that killed the "others" before they could get a foothold.

 

[aelf]

But it's not nonsense, because there's a scientific study backing it up. So, I mean, there ya go.

Careful now. There are people who will take issue with this and insist that the questions were loaded and the survey was a hack job. The respondents might have interpreted questions like "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races" as asking them about illegal immigrants.

 

[Mise]

How did they measure "right-wing", though? Apparently they are equating being right-winger with espousing authoritarian/bigoted views. From the article:



So the study would consider me a left-winger, even though I am quite firmly in the right.

I agree that frequently authoritarian and bigoted politics have been associated with the political right, but that's not a rule and not a definition. There are racist and homophobic commies out there too.

Well, as (I think) Traitorfish said earlier, this is consistent with the way that the labels "right wing" and "left wing" are used in the UK.

For example, recently, the Conservatives have tried to purge their party of their nastier (i.e. racist, homophobic, sexist, etc) wing, David Cameron having been elected to their leadership in 2005 mainly for that reason. His keynote speech at the Conservative party conference last year was yet another reminder that his party's leadership has moved on:

Link to video.

However, these remarks would be considered "left wing" in the UK, even though his main point is that gay marriage is exemplar of Conservative values. Point being, the way that the terms "left wing" and "right wing" are used in the study is consistent with the way the terms are used in the UK.

 

[Traitorfish]

Perhaps the dumb accepting humans would have been edged out of the genepool by successful smart outsiders capitalizing on their acceptance, so the surviving dumb humans were the ones that killed the "others" before they could get a foothold.

Do the dynamics of hunter-gatherer bands really compare to sexual intolerance?

 

[Ayn Rand]

But it's not nonsense, because there's a scientific study backing it up. So, I mean, there ya go.

I'm not wasting my time on something so foolish - conversation is over for me, good luck with the navel gazing.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not wasting my time on something so foolish - conversation is over for me, good luck with the navel gazing.

Do you always reject things that conflict with your presuppositions out of hand, or is this a special case?

Anyhoo, Charlie Brooker has comments. Good times.

 

[luiz]

Well, as (I think) Traitorfish said earlier, this is consistent with the way that the labels "right wing" and "left wing" are used in the UK.

For example, recently, the Conservatives have tried to purge their party of their nastier (i.e. racist, homophobic, sexist, etc) wing, David Cameron having been elected to their leadership in 2005 mainly for that reason. His keynote speech at the Conservative party conference last year was yet another reminder that his party's leadership has moved on:

Link to video.

However, these remarks would be considered "left wing" in the UK, even though his main point is that gay marriage is exemplar of Conservative values. Point being, the way that the terms "left wing" and "right wing" are used in the study is consistent with the way the terms are used in the UK.

They don't seem to even touch economic issues, though, which I suppose are a big part of the left-right division in the UK (and anywhere else).

My point being that someone generally opposed to the welfare state, against too much government regulation, for free trade and low taxes would probably be considered a right-winger in the UK (and anywhere else), but this study has not demonstrated that such person is in average less intelligent than left-wingers.

What they are saying is that authoritarian bigots are in average less intelligent, which is not very surprising.

 

[Oruc]

Well left-wing politics turns people stupid, so I guess it evens out.

 

[Traitorfish]

They don't seem to even touch economic issues, though, which I suppose are a big part of the left-right division in the UK (and anywhere else).

My point being that someone generally opposed to the welfare state, against too much government regulation, for free trade and low taxes would probably be considered a right-winger in the UK (and anywhere else), but this study has not demonstrated that such person is in average less intelligent than left-wingers.

What they are saying is that authoritarian bigots are in average less intelligent, which is not very surprising.

The study seemed to focus on conservative versus progressive politics, and as far as I understand, Canada follows the UK in using "right-wing" and "left-wing" to refer to the two tendencies. It makes sense if you read it with the vocabulary with which it was intended to be read, rather than whatever uses of "right" and "left" we may personally prefer.

Well left-wing politics turns people stupid, so I guess it evens out.

Do go on.

 

[Mise]

One hypothesis in evolutionary biology* is that intelligence was evolved as a response to events that were individually non-recurrent, but nonetheless happened frequently enough to trigger survival of the fittest. People who were "intelligent" were generally better at surviving, say, floods that happened once every 200 years, or the occasional fire, because their intelligence allowed them to overcome this problem without resorting to "pre-programmed" (i.e. evolved) responses. Under this hypothesis, then, less intelligent individuals have greater difficulty than more intelligent people with comprehending and dealing with evolutionarily novel entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment.

I think it's fair to say that the modern world is evolutionarily novel, whereas corporal punishment and vilification of "outsiders" (which is an evolved response to resource scarcity) are situations that were commonplace in the ancestral environment. Stupid people adapt to the modern world by clinging to those evolved responses; smart people develop new responses to adapt to the modern world. Conservativism is rooted in both an unwillingness and eventual failure to adapt to evolutionarily novel situations.

Discuss.


*-I don't think that this has been proven or accepted as scientific consenus. And the guy whose blog I'm linking to was widely discredited for positing racist and sexist views.

 

[Tahuti]

My point being that someone generally opposed to the welfare state, against too much government regulation, for free trade and low taxes would probably be considered a right-winger in the UK (and anywhere else), but this study has not demonstrated that such person is in average less intelligent than left-wingers.

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.

 

[luiz]

The study seemed to focus on conservative versus progressive politics, and as far as I understand, Canada follows the UK in using "right-wing" and "left-wing" to refer to the two tendencies. It makes sense if you read it with the vocabulary with which it was intended to be read, rather than whatever uses of "right" and "left" we may personally prefer.

Well, I am all for open immigration and a multi-ethnic society, I support gay marriage, I don't think the main job of schools is to teach discipline, I don't think physical punishments are productive, etc.

Does that mean I'm a leftists in the UK?

When you, a brit, read my posts do you think "that luiz sure is one big leftist!" ?

If the answer is "no", I take issue with the terminology used.

 

[luiz]

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.

What is a myth is that there are fixed policies that are "rightist" or "leftist". For instance, agricultural subsidies. That may be supported by some right-wingers and hated by others. It's not a "righ-wing policy" at all.

So studies like this would do better to use more specific terms, IMO. In this particular study they seem to be focusing on authoritarianism and tolerance. Leftists can be quite authoritarian and intolerant, eg., Che Guevara (an authoritarian homophobe).

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, I am all for open immigration and a multi-ethnic society, I support gay marriage, I don't think the main job of schools is to teach discipline, I don't think physical punishments are productive, etc.

Does that mean I'm a leftists in the UK?

When you, a brit, read my posts do you think "that luiz sure is one big leftist!" ?

If the answer is "no", I take issue with the terminology used.

Are people of your politics a statistically significant minority, though? Enough to throw the conclusions of this survey into doubt? I'm not denying that the narrow left-right conception of political orientation is limited, just that it isn't necessarily incoherent in this context.

 

[Mise]

Well, I am all for open immigration and a multi-ethnic society, I support gay marriage, I don't think the main job of schools is to teach discipline, I don't think physical punishments are productive, etc.

Does that mean I'm a leftists in the UK?

When you, a brit, read my posts do you think "that luiz sure is one big leftist!" ?

If the answer is "no", I take issue with the terminology used.

If you were the leader of a political party, you'd be considered a centrist here. And I suppose a moderate in America.

 

[Tahuti]

What is a myth is that there are fixed policies that are "rightist" or "leftist". For instance, agricultural subsidies. That may be supported by some right-wingers and hated by others. It's not a "right-wing policy" at all.

So studies like this would do better to use more specific terms, IMO. In this particular study they seem to be focusing on authoritarianism and tolerance. Leftists can be quite authoritarian and intolerant, eg., Che Guevara (an authoritarian homophobe).

Are people of your politics a statistically significant minority, though? Enough to throw the conclusions of this survey into doubt? I'm not denying that the narrow left-right conception of political orientation is limited, just that it isn't necessarily incoherent in this context.

Well, there is a reason why policies are divided into Right-Wing politics and Left-Wing politics and syncretic politics like Libertarianism are rarely supported: Personal interest and political expedience.
Libertarianism and Communism for example are politically unviable in the United States because its viewpoints are incongruent to the American voters.

Urban folk tend to support social liberalism and economic progressivism because of a city's ethnic and lifestyle diversity and because packing alot of people up in one location means city life is less personal and city inhabitants are therefore less prepared to support their fellow citizens economically. Conversely, rural folk feel they are held together by social conservatism and religion and because of their tightly-knit existence, believe they have less need for government aid as well.

 

[Glassfan]

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?

There have been plenty of studies over the years and they add up to nothing. I'm personally fond of the one that showed that intelligent people are better liars. Don't take these things too seriously.

 

[Traitorfish]

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?

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?

 

[bhsup]

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.

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

So yeah...neener neener neener!