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

[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.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

Is Racism Just a Form of Stupidity?

I think that a lot of us are shying away from an obvious truth, that the kind of blatant racial prejudice we are witnessing in Ferguson, Missouri, has everything to do with stupidity.I'm talking about …

www.psychologicalscience.org

I think it's the educated that follow the left

There's a few reasons


The main one is that through academia, they never got taught to think and use any critical methodology.

They simply past a few memory tests to gain a ticket to be worker ants for big business and big govt

 

[Mofra]

I think it's the educated that follow the left

There's a few reasons


The main one is that through academia, they never got taught to think and use any critical methodology.

They simply past a few memory tests to gain a ticket to be worker ants for big business and big govt

Tell me you know nothing about university, without telling me you know nothing about university.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I think it's the educated that follow the left

There's a few reasons


The main one is that through academia, they never got taught to think and use any critical methodology.

They simply past a few memory tests to gain a ticket to be worker ants for big business and big govt

So you identify as uneducated?

 

[Gethelred]

I think it's the educated that follow the left

There's a few reasons


The main one is that through academia, they never got taught to think and use any critical methodology.

They simply past a few memory tests to gain a ticket to be worker ants for big business and big govt

...

This is even funnier than some of the stuff you come out with on other parts of the forum.

 

[Number37]

I think it's the educated that follow the left

There's a few reasons


The main one is that through academia, they never got taught to think and use any critical methodology.

They simply past a few memory tests to gain a ticket to be worker ants for big business and big govt

Out of curiosity...where does one go to get taught to think and use critical methodology?

 

[Grin]

Here's a question for our conservative/rightwing centrist brethren:

We know that the vast majority of people who will be negatively affected by the changes to stage 3 tax cuts live in Teal or inner city seats, Labor or Green, and are probably woke.

Duton and Murdoch drones' whole reason for existence is to shit these people off. The dumb ****s will vote for a party that want's to sacrifice affordable health care, education, wages, housing, the environment, the nations economic future etc. just so we can give all the loot to largely foreign owned multinationals, as long as Dutton promises to heroically punch down and hurt the most vulnerable as much as possible, which'll really piss them wokies off

So why has Murdoch and Dutton ordered their minions to be outraged about this?

Is it because Dutton et al's income will also suffer for the benefit of this nation?
Is it because, despite needing to con them for their votes, he absolutely despises middle Australia for being to lazy to inherit $ billions?
Is it because he sees it as an opportunity to up the culture wars? Confident that despite the contradictions, the type of people who still support him will be too mindless and gullible to notice?

Can one of you Murdoch drones Scam victims centrists with a degree in life from the university of hard knocks please explain?

I'll accept "I don't know. I'm just mindlessly thinking what I'm told. Where's me Ausie flag?"

 

[Gough]

If the Murdoch drones cared as much about integrity as they loudly and piously claim to they wouldn't be working for someone who had to pony nearly $700 million for lying about the result of the American election.

 

[evolved2]

Here's a question for our conservative/rightwing centrist brethren:

Challenge accepted.

We know that the vast majority of people who will be negatively affected by the changes to stage 3 tax cuts live in Teal or inner city seats, Labor or Green, and are probably woke.

We're all affected when democracy fails. I presume you're almost intelligent enough to recognise the ALP took stage 3 tax cuts to the most recent federal election, and they won. That's a mandate if ever I've seen one!

Double points if you know that stage 1 and 2 tax cuts are already in effect.

Duton and Murdoch drones' whole reason for existence is to s**t these people off. The dumb *s will vote for a party that want's to sacrifice affordable health care, education, wages, housing, the environment, the nations economic future etc. just so we can give all the loot to largely foreign owned multinationals, as long as Dutton promises to heroically punch down and hurt the most vulnerable as much as possible, which'll really piss them wokies off

You'll be even more pissed off when you realise AnAl's change of position won't provide a cent to housing, the environment, healthcare, education, wages, or the next Richmond premiership.

Feel free to call me a centrist or some other filthy insult while I state that blaming Murdoch for everything makes you a cooker.

So why has Murdoch and Dutton ordered their minions to be outraged about this?

Is it because Dutton et al's income will also suffer for the benefit of this nation?
Is it because, despite needing to con them for their votes, he absolutely despises middle Australia for being to lazy to inherit $ billions?
Is it because he sees it as an opportunity to up the culture wars? Confident that despite the contradictions, the type of people who still support him will be too mindless and gullible to notice?

Can one of you Murdoch drones Scam victims centrists with a degree in life from the university of hard knocks please explain?

I'll accept "I don't know. I'm just mindlessly thinking what I'm told. Where's me Ausie flag?"

I expect our politicians to be accountable for the promises they bring to an election. The more pertinent question is why do LWNJ's hate democracy? What are your thoughts?

 

[Blue1980]

The left are vandals, they never saw something beautiful they couldn’t destroy! So I just thought I’d play lefty righty for a post! Did I do good ?

“Enlightened” centrist hey?

 

[Blue1980]

Challenge accepted.

We're all affected when democracy fails. I presume you're almost intelligent enough to recognise the ALP took stage 3 tax cuts to the most recent federal election, and they won. That's a mandate if ever I've seen one!

Double points if you know that stage 1 and 2 tax cuts are already in effect.

You'll be even more pissed off when you realise AnAl's change of position won't provide a cent to housing, the environment, healthcare, education, wages, or the next Richmond premiership.

Feel free to call me a centrist or some other filthy insult while I state that blaming Murdoch for everything makes you a cooker.

I expect our politicians to be accountable for the promises they bring to an election. The more pertinent question is why do LWNJ's hate democracy? What are your thoughts?

lol, democracy falling? Is Albo banning elections?

 

[evolved2]

lol, democracy falling? Is Albo banning elections?

If you vote for stage 3 tax cuts and you get stage 2.5 tax cuts, you didn't get what you voted for. Sheesh; some of you call me selfish.

 

[the_interloper]

Should I start a thread "why do more intelligent people gravitate to liberal/left wing ideology?

 

[Chief]

If you vote for stage 3 tax cuts and you get stage 2.5 tax cuts, you didn't get what you voted for. Sheesh; some of you call me selfish.

So vote against him next time. That is how it works.

If the majority believe that it's not as important as other things, or that it's a good change, then he will be returned to the job.

 

[evolved2]

Should I start a thread "why do more intelligent people gravitate to liberal/left wing ideology?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

If you vote for stage 3 tax cuts and you get stage 2.5 tax cuts, you didn't get what you voted for. Sheesh; some of you call me selfish.

Are broken promises worse than lies, or secret ministries?

 

[faible]

If you vote for stage 3 tax cuts and you get stage 2.5 tax cuts, you didn't get what you voted for. Sheesh; some of you call me selfish.

I'd love a direct democracy where I can actually vote for what I want, not just a party that I hope will do some things that I want and not too many things I don't.

But, meanwhile, having a melt about broken promises because they're still providing a tax cut but have broadened it to cover most of the (full-time) working population during a cost of living crisis seems a bit ridiculous.

 

[evolved2]

Are broken promises worse than lies, or secret ministries?

Not worse, but same ball park.

When did accountability become a dirty word?

 

[evolved2]

I'd love a direct democracy where I can actually vote for what I want, not just a party that I hope will do some things that I want and not too many things I don't.

But, meanwhile, having a melt about broken promises because they're still providing a tax cut but have broadened it to cover most of the (full-time) working population during a cost of living crisis seems a bit ridiculous.

Nobody is melting. It's a valid discussion point, wouldn't you agree?

 

[faible]

Nobody is melting. It's a valid discussion point, wouldn't you agree?

I don't think it's particularly valid, no.

Good governance is assessing the legalisation in place on an ongoing basis to decide whether it's fit for purpose for the good of the country.

Does it make sense to provide tax relief only to high income earners at a time when most of the population is suffering from a cost of living crisis, or does it make sense to provide tax relief to the majority of the working population?

In no other industry would we accept that you should go through with a decision completely unchanged in the face of significant changes in the external environment.

Lots of people are melting too, oddly they're all in the highest tax brackets.

 

[evolved2]

I don't think it's particularly valid, no.

Good governance is assessing the legalisation in place on an ongoing basis to decide whether it's fit for purpose for the good of the country.

Does it make sense to provide tax relief only to high income earners at a time when most of the population is suffering from a cost of living crisis, or does it make sense to provide tax relief to the majority of the working population?

In no other industry would we accept that you should go through with a decision completely unchanged in the face of significant changes in the external environment.

You're saying it's not a valid discussion point while discussing it. That fascinates me more than your argument.

 

[faible]

You're saying it's not a valid discussion point while discussing it. That fascinates me more than your argument.

I'm discussing the sense of changing policy and legislation in the face of a changing environment.

You're just complaining about broken promises.

These are not the same thing.

 

[evolved2]

I'm discussing the sense of changing policy and legislation in the face of a changing environment.

You're just complaining about broken promises.

These are not the same thing.

So it's not a discussion point until you discuss it? Oh what a tangled web we weave.

 

[faible]

So it's not a discussion point until you discuss it? Oh what a tangled web we weave.

You're free to discuss whether changing legislation is good government or not.

Simply complaining about broken promises isn't a discussion, no matter how many times you keep trying to repeat it.

You keep trying to say accountability and broken promises because you know discussing the policy itself leads very rapidly to a point that can't be defended.

It was bad legislation; giving a small percentage of high income earners a substantial tax discount was never a good idea, doing it once the external economic environment had changed and saw massive financial pressures being heaped upon low and middle income earners in particular made it untenable.

Did you want to discuss legislation or just keep complaining about broken promises as though that actually means anything?

 

[evolved2]

You're free to discuss whether changing legislation is good government or not.

Simply complaining about broken promises isn't a discussion, no matter how many times you keep trying to repeat it.

You keep trying to say accountability and broken promises because you know discussing the policy itself leads very rapidly to a point that can't be defended.

It was bad legislation; giving a small percentage of high income earners a substantial tax discount was never a good idea, doing it once the external economic environment had changed and saw massive financial pressures being heaped upon low and middle income earners in particular made it untenable.

Did you want to discuss legislation or just keep complaining about broken promises as though that actually means anything?

So...it's a valid discussion point, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

So vote against him next time. That is how it works.

If the majority believe that it's not as important as other things, or that it's a good change, then he will be returned to the job.

You can't really vote 'against' someone in our system.