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.

 

[jb40]

Evrry single one of us transitioned from female to male in the uterus at the 6-7 week mark.

Its relevance to the debate is fairly obvious - sometimes we as humans have mutations and that’s what i clearly outlined in the post you clearly skimmed through without understanding.

Thus, once again you have shown why this thread exists….

yet homosexuality is banned and seen as a mental illness in most of the world except the west that is capsizing that only recently stopped classing homosexuality as a mental illness

basic politics and economics explains this same with left ism

 

[Chief]

What do you mean? This doesn't make sense.

 

[Gough]

yet homosexuality is banned and seen as a mental illness in most of the world except the west that is capsizing that only recently stopped classing homosexuality as a mental illness

basic politics and economics explains this same with left ism

It's the trans people that are destroying society now not the gays. Get with the program dude.

 

[Cap]

What do you mean? This doesn't make sense.

You need warning on here to not post while under the influence

 

[kranky al]

yet homosexuality is banned and seen as a mental illness in most of the world except the west that is capsizing that only recently stopped classing homosexuality as a mental illness

basic politics and economics explains this same with left ism

We are capsizing eh??

You might wanna go to some of those countries that still stigmatise homosexuality.

They aint knocking it out of the park, au contraire they are 3rd world countries - but i suppose as lomg as they arent “capsizing”

As for your last badly mangled sentence. Are there any of you conservatives out there chance your arm on deciphering that gibberish?

 

[Carringbush2010]

What you have to understand was, when the laws were passed they did . ****ter bashing was a sport, the police wouldnt charge people for doing it.

It ain't no more thankfully, Idk how you come to the conclusion that you think I didn't know this, this is very common knowledge.

We're talkin about now, not then.

 

[Carringbush2010]

yet homosexuality is banned and seen as a mental illness in most of the world except the west that is capsizing that only recently stopped classing homosexuality as a mental illness

basic politics and economics explains this same with left ism

lol. 'the west is capsizing I tells ya!' Paranoid much?

So your implication seems to be 'coz leftism' and you've linked it with 'coz the west supports gays, that's leftism'

Is this your implication? If so, I'll give you an epiphany, marginalized minorities ARE broadly supported by liberal societies, it's not a noisy lefty fringe, it's most people on the street.

Better get used to it jb.

 

[kranky al]

It ain't no more thankfully, Idk how you come to the conclusion that you think I didn't know this, this is very common knowledge.

We're talkin about now, not then.

Because you must have missed that this is a subthread from an argument over why gay folk had to get political.

They had to get political or continue to get abused.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Because you must have missed that this is a subthread from an argument over why gay folk had to get political.

They had to get political or continue to get abused.

Well I did reply to you and questioned if you thought someone using homophobia as an excuse to bash homosexuals was the norm and widely accepted.

Now< in 2023

 

[kranky al]

Well I did reply to you and questioned if you thought someone using homophobia as an excuse to bash homosexuals was the norm and widely accepted.

Now< in 2023

I guess that’s the trouble you get when you come in half way through something else.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I guess that’s the trouble you get when you come in half way through something else.

Well, when I asked that question it was pretty clear the timeline I meant, ever since I asked it, you replied implying that yeah this behaviour is accepted and the norm, and we've been back and forth ever since.

It was then, not now.

 

[kranky al]

Well, when I asked that question it was pretty clear the timeline I meant, ever since I asked it, you replied implying that yeah this behaviour is accepted and the norm, and we've been back and forth ever since.

It was then, not now.

Theres your original reply.


Oh and:


<<<
South Australia has abolished "gay panic" as a defence in crimes of violence with state parliament passing legislation to end the "downright offensive" provisions.
It's the last state in Australia to do so.
The provocation defence could previously be used as a legal strategy to downgrade a charge of murder to manslaughter if the accused argued they lost control and became violent after the victim made an unwanted sexual advance.

The provocation clause has been used four times in the last ten years but in a slew of cases between 1993 and 1995, at least 13 defendants successfully applied this defence in New South Wales alone.>>>


Article posted dec 2020. Gay panic defence used 4 times in the last ten years.


Law not repealed until 2021

 

[the_interloper]

View attachment 1666086


Theres your original reply.


Oh and:


<<<
South Australia has abolished "gay panic" as a defence in crimes of violence with state parliament passing legislation to end the "downright offensive" provisions.
It's the last state in Australia to do so.
The provocation defence could previously be used as a legal strategy to downgrade a charge of murder to manslaughter if the accused argued they lost control and became violent after the victim made an unwanted sexual advance.

The provocation clause has been used four times in the last ten years but in a slew of cases between 1993 and 1995, at least 13 defendants successfully applied this defence in New South Wales alone.>>>


Article posted dec 2020. Gay panic defence used 4 times in the last ten years.


Law not repealed until 2021

Bloody hell, I had a barista in Adelaide who cracked onto me years ago, I didn't know I had the right to beat the shit out of him!

 

[Gough]

I was doing htv cards for the Greens one state election and I got cruised by a fat old queen who despite calling Vicki Chapman a total bitch was handing out for the Libs.

 

[kranky al]

I was doing htv cards for the Greens one state election and I got cruised by a fat old queen who despite calling Vicki Chapman a total bitch was handing out for the Libs.

Do gays get a get out of jail free liberal supporter panic defence?

Only seems fair to me?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Bloody hell, I had a barista in Adelaide who cracked onto me years ago, I didn't know I had the right to beat the s**t out of him!

Once upon a time in Thailand...

 

[the_interloper]

Once upon a time in Thailand...

I was there with work years ago, we made our workmate who was a bodybuilder flex for some ladyboy street workers, we had to bolt, they all took off after him ha ha

 

[Cap]

I was thinking about this thread and it's application to people who identify on the spectrum of right wing.

Firstly, today's "right" is a decade ago 'far right' in my opinion. Right wing never meant to encourage you to be racist, bigoted or ignorant but I guess that is what happens with spectrums, they move.

But modern right wing allows you to be intellectually lazy, you can cling to your beliefs by either downplaying issues, establishing your self as the victim or dismiss anything to the contrary of your view as 'left wing's propaganda.

So I can absolutely understand why it's easier to throw away beer you've bought in a little dummy spit, than sit down and consider the situation, or lament the mining of lithium for EVs without considering the impact of what occurs for the production of ICE cars or even dismiss climate change.

It's easy to throw the beer out or regurgitate something you've found online. But it's hard to sit down and consider the issue.

So rather than being less intelligent, perhaps it's just laziness or at least a lack of desire to consider topics on merit.

 

[Nice Swan Brother]

I was thinking about this thread and it's application to people who identify on the spectrum of right wing.

Firstly, today's "right" is a decade ago 'far right' in my opinion. Right wing never meant to encourage you to be racist, bigoted or ignorant but I guess that is what happens with spectrums, they move.

But modern right wing allows you to be intellectually lazy, you can cling to your beliefs by either downplaying issues, establishing your self as the victim or dismiss anything to the contrary of your view as 'left wing's propaganda.

So I can absolutely understand why it's easier to throw away beer you've bought in a little dummy spit, than sit down and consider the situation, or lament the mining of lithium for EVs without considering the impact of what occurs for the production of ICE cars.

It's easy to throw the beer out or regurgitate something you've found online. But it's hard to sit down and consider the issue.

So rather than being less intelligent, perhaps it's just laziness or at least a lack of desire to consider topics on merit.

You think unwillingness to engage in rational nuanced debate that deviates from tribal narratives is exclusively a 'right wing' thing?

Your above statement may not be wrong, but the below could be equally as correct.

Firstly, today's "left" is a decade ago 'far left' in my opinion.
But modern left wing allows you to be intellectually lazy, you can cling to your beliefs by either downplaying issues, establishing your self as the victim or dismiss anything to the contrary of your view as 'right wing's propaganda.
So rather than being less intelligent, perhaps it's just laziness or at least a lack of desire to consider topics on merit.

The problem with the 'left' and 'right' (and the freaking labelling as such) is that no one no longer seems to be able to think independently about individual topics and just sides with the others inside their echo chambers. I hope I am right in my opinion that the platform social media gives to the fringes of the spectrum exaggerates this and there is a still a sensible majority of centre right/left people who agree on most things, good old common sense.

 

[Cap]

You think unwillingness to engage in rational nuanced debate that deviates from tribal narratives is exclusively a 'right wing' thing?

Your above statement may not be wrong, but the below could be equally as correct.

Firstly, today's "left" is a decade ago 'far left' in my opinion.
But modern left wing allows you to be intellectually lazy, you can cling to your beliefs by either downplaying issues, establishing your self as the victim or dismiss anything to the contrary of your view as 'right wing's propaganda.
So rather than being less intelligent, perhaps it's just laziness or at least a lack of desire to consider topics on merit.

The problem with the 'left' and 'right' (and the freaking labelling as such) is that no one no longer seems to be able to think independently about individual topics and just sides with the others inside their echo chambers. I hope I am right in my opinion that the platform social media gives to the fringes of the spectrum exaggerates this and there is a still a sensible majority of centre right/left people who agree on most things, good old common sense.

And that's fine for you to have that opinion. And I'm not saying it's exclusive to the far right, just its a notable quality you can see playing out in most topics (I even provided supporting examples )

No doubt social media has a role to play in the polarisation of political opinion.

But at this stage I'm yet to engage on this site with anything that equates to your "gotcha" post, which again is another tactic by our far right brethren, the old we are only doing it because the are (the old everyone does it argument) which are also usually unsubstantiated.

Also, common ground doesn't make you centrist nor does it make you sensible. It is just another way to avoid having conviction. (I say that understanding that sometimes in problem resolution common ground is useful)

 

[Nice Swan Brother]

And that's fine for you to have that opinion. And I'm not saying it's exclusive to the far right, just its a notable quality you can see playing out in most topics (I even provided supporting examples )

No doubt social media has a role to play in the polarisation of political opinion.

But at this stage I'm yet to engage on this site with anything that equates to your "gotcha" post, which again is another tactic by our far right brethren, the old we are only doing it because the are (the old everyone does it argument) which are also usually unsubstantiated.

Also, common ground doesn't make you centrist nor does it make you sensible. It is just another way to avoid having conviction. (I say that understanding that sometimes in problem resolution common ground is useful)

As far as I can tell it was a paid collaboration with an influencer (likely one of many) that would appeal to her followers and not a national advertising campaign, so the heat seams disproportionate.

I personally don’t see the appeal of Dylan Mulvaney, therefore I don’t follow her on social media.

Re: your examples.

Above is my response in a seperate thread with my thoughts around the Bud Lite furore. I think it is overblown and the social media twits destroying bud lite cans in response are idiots. Again confident it is mostly the fringes with profiles on social media where sensible discussions of these topics don't earn followers. Also no doubt fodder for Sky news and the 80,000 boomers that watch it after after dark.

That is not to say that parents should not be concerned about an increase in trans-activists on social media and discussions around gender that challenge established norms. Apparently questioning why drag queens are reading to children in libraries is xenophobic. In my opinion it's a sensible conversation. Does this make me far right? If so maybe the spectrum has moved, but the other way.

And of course people should be challenging whether the move to electric is the only way forward, or whether time frames proposed are unrealistic. The conversation has been politicised by both sides.

I am looking at a new Toyota SUV that drinks less than 4L per 100km which is a third of my current vehicle. If I drove a PHEV (which I want but not many options in my price range) 90% of my kms would be electric. I don't want an electric car until I can get a range of 1000kms, or a fast-charger that can get to full range in 5 mins, and an affordable one for my home that can charge my car overnight. So I question targets to move to 100% 'zero emission' vehicles in a shorter period than possible if the only tech being considered is 100% EVs. Germany is breaking ranks from the EU on this topic because they wont support e-fuels which can be essentially carbon neutral. There are sensible conversations to be had, perhaps you are willing to engage in them, perhaps you are 'intellectually lazy' and are dismissing anything contrary as 'right wing propaganda'.

 

[Cap]

Sensible discussion has never been the issue, you are conflating the issues.

Your statement was that we have fundamentally equal problem with extreme left as we do with extreme right, but then just offer a nice bed time story.

But I digress, I'll try to cover the number of things you've marbled together

Re: your examples.

Above is my response in a seperate thread with my thoughts around the Bud Lite furore. I think it is overblown and the social media twits destroying bud lite cans in response are idiots. Again confident it is mostly the fringes with profiles on social media where sensible discussions of these topics don't earn followers. Also no doubt fodder for Sky news and the 80,000 boomers that watch it after after dark.

Yes it is, but the fact it's fringe and gets air time and actively targets minority groups is the problem, something very consistent with right wing talking points.

That is not to say that parents should not be concerned about an increase in trans-activists on social media and discussions around gender that challenge established norms. Apparently questioning why drag queens are reading to children in libraries is xenophobic. In my opinion it's a sensible conversation. Does this make me far right? If so maybe the spectrum has moved, but the other way.

It's not the question, it's bad faith nature of the questioning. It's the attachment of claims of grooming or sexual assault, again it's attacking a minority with no factual basis.

I never considered Dame Edna a groomer, nor did I think it would turn a generation of children into cross dressers.... did you?

And of course people should be challenging whether the move to electric is the only way forward, or whether time frames proposed are unrealistic. The conversation has been politicised by both sides.

Again though, that's not what is being argued.

If there were a better alternative to EVs it would be an argument about which tech, there is not.

The arguments had, often by people of certain persuasion, are about the benefits or otherwise.

These arguing against, again have no factual basis to their arguments,often relying on old, incorrect or anecdotal evidence to press their case

Or showing criticism of EVs in vacuum. And to be fair their are valid criticism and things that need to done to make it a better outcome

But the same can be said for every part of the renewable energy debate, but it's even worse for the current alternative

I am looking at a new Toyota SUV that drinks less than 4L per 100km which is a third of my current vehicle. If I drove a PHEV (which I want but not many options in my price range) 90% of my kms would be electric. I don't want an electric car until I can get a range of 1000kms, or a fast-charger that can get to full range in 5 mins, and an affordable one for my home that can charge my car overnight. So I question targets to move to 100% 'zero emission' vehicles in a shorter period than possible if the only tech being considered is 100% EVs.

Establishing markets and making them affordable and appropriate is what should have been part of the planning.

Germany is breaking ranks from the EU on this topic because they wont support e-fuels which can be essentially carbon neutral.

No they aren't, they are just including an option in the long shot chance something comes up, good for them.

But like most sensible people the path is clear.

There are sensible conversations to be had, perhaps you are willing to engage in them, perhaps you are 'intellectually lazy' and are dismissing anything contrary as 'right wing propaganda'.

There are, but you've not really demonstrated a capacity to do so, the fact you wanted to end your post with this sentence pretty much sums you up pretty well.

 

[Nice Swan Brother]

There are, but you've not really demonstrated a capacity to do so, the fact you wanted to end your post with this sentence pretty much sums you up pretty well.

You realise I am essentially quoting your post right?

And I am not going to bother with the Dame Edna false equivalence.

'But like most sensible people the path is clear.' ...Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Cap]

You realise I am essentially quoting your post right?

And I am not going to bother with the Dame Edna false equivalence.

'But like most sensible people the path is clear.' ...Thanks for proving my point.

Yes I'm aware what you are trying to do.

Of course you aren't going to bother, I wouldn't expect anything more of you, even you last sentence is a caricature of a point.

 

[evolved2]

I was thinking about this thread and it's application to people who identify on the spectrum of right wing.

Firstly, today's "right" is a decade ago 'far right' in my opinion. Right wing never meant to encourage you to be racist, bigoted or ignorant but I guess that is what happens with spectrums, they move.

But modern right wing allows you to be intellectually lazy, you can cling to your beliefs by either downplaying issues, establishing your self as the victim or dismiss anything to the contrary of your view as 'left wing's propaganda.

So I can absolutely understand why it's easier to throw away beer you've bought in a little dummy spit, than sit down and consider the situation, or lament the mining of lithium for EVs without considering the impact of what occurs for the production of ICE cars or even dismiss climate change.

It's easy to throw the beer out or regurgitate something you've found online. But it's hard to sit down and consider the issue.

So rather than being less intelligent, perhaps it's just laziness or at least a lack of desire to consider topics on merit.

That's a very high horse you're sitting on. A lot of left wing posters watch too much Sky news and assume a good portion of those nominally viewed as RW hold the same views as Andrew Bolt or even Mark Latham.

Adam Bandt has identified the ALP as a center right party. Do you honestly think they encourage or support racism?

You're more likely to see racism supported by the left on the SRP. Take, for example, relative levels of support for Lidia Thorpe and Pauline Hanson here.