PDA

View Full Version : Accurate Story in the Daily Mail !?



pjclarke
6th February 2012, 08:02
Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html)

DodgyAgent
6th February 2012, 08:11
Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html)

Quit right John Prescott certainly makes David Willets, Oliver Letwin and William Hague look stupid :laugh

BlasterBates
6th February 2012, 08:26
That's interesting; a similar survey on comparing groups who believe that climate change is a serious threat and those who don't.

Believers in climate change being a serious threat less intelligent than those who don't (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503)

Old Greg
6th February 2012, 08:34
Quit right John Prescott certainly makes David Willets, Oliver Letwin and William Hague look stupid :laugh

Dodgy, you illustrate the point perfectly.

For what it's worth, I suspect the point around intelligence is nonsense.

The question of racism may be true in correlation, but the causality would be hard to demonstrate. It seems more likely IMO that racism is used by the élite to divide the powerless.

There are some interesting studies about political views and an increased ability to process fear (right wing) or complex information (left wing), but they are just studies and don't 'prove' anything. Mrs OG is an academic cognitive neuroscientist and finds it all amusing that people try to draw such conclusions. But then she's an intelligent leftie who is good with complex information.

Biology and political orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation)

BrilloPad
6th February 2012, 08:35
"people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views"

They certainly are bigoted. It is just a question of which group(s) they pick on. If not the above it would probably be fat people or something.

pjclarke
6th February 2012, 09:12
a similar survey on comparing groups who believe that climate change is a serious threat and those who don't.

Interesting paper. Did you read it or just copy-paste the spin? It's more about how political, cultural and 'tribal' prejudices prevent even scientifically literate people from assessing the evidence rationally.


Our study results belie the conventional view that controversy over policy-relevant science is rooted in the public’s lack of scientific knowledge and its inability to engage in technical reasoning. As ordinary people learn more science and become more proficient in modes of reasoning characteristic of scientific inquiry, they do not reliably converge on assessments of climate change risks supported by scientific evidence. Instead they more form beliefs that are even more reliably characteristic of persons who hold their particular cultural worldviews. Indeed, far from a symptom of how poorly equipped ordinary individuals are to reach rational conclusions on the basis of complex scientific data, disputes overissues like climate change, we’ve argued, are evidence of how remarkably well equipped they are to discern what stances toward such information satisfy their expressive interests. The high degree of rationality individuals display in forming risk perceptions that express their cultural values can itself inhibit collective welfare rationality by blocking citizens from converging on the best available scientific evidence on how to secure their common interests in health, safety, and prosperity.

Arturo Bassick
6th February 2012, 09:17
Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html)The problem with all this bullshit is that the "right wing" politics they talk about are actualy much more aligned with what would be seen as far left than they are with Tory.
There is an idea of a political compass that compares attitudes in 4 directions rather than 2 which ends up with the far right incredibly close in ideology to the far left though their reasons for being there are somewhat different.

BlasterBates
6th February 2012, 09:32
Interesting paper. Did you read it or just copy-paste the spin? It's more about how political, cultural and 'tribal' prejudices prevent even scientifically literate people from assessing the evidence rationally.

I think the reason why this is the case is because believers in CAGW tend to be autocratic, which fits in with the survey you posted. i.e. believers tend to want to believe in it, as it would justify a very autocratic society. So probably there are similar reasons, a feeling of insecurity and so on. Very leftwing thinkers, as CAGW believers tend to be, are very similar to very rightwing thinkers, blinkered. I think you'll find most intellectuals somewhere in the centre.

DodgyAgent
6th February 2012, 09:40
Dodgy, you illustrate the point perfectly.

For what it's worth, I suspect the point around intelligence is nonsense.

The question of racism may be true in correlation, but the causality would be hard to demonstrate. It seems more likely IMO that racism is used by the élite to divide the powerless.

There are some interesting studies about political views and an increased ability to process fear (right wing) or complex information (left wing), but they are just studies and don't 'prove' anything. Mrs OG is an academic cognitive neuroscientist and finds it all amusing that people try to draw such conclusions. But then she's an intelligent leftie who is good with complex information.

Biology and political orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation)

Very bright people are indeed very good at processing complex information. However not so many possess either the emotional Intelligence or the means of communication to understand and deal with the complexities of human nature. Your wife, with respect, may well be "left wing" but I would suggest that this is more to do with her reluctance to engage with people at the bottom end of the social spectrum and the fact that maybe she finds people at the top of the pile intimidating. I do not know, so I am making a guess. Being "left wing" to many simply shows you care. It is a patronising gift to those not as privileged as you.

"left wing" is a badge worn by many academics. Wearing this means they don't have to confront the dirty question of privilege. The badge (which is all it is) is nothing more than an empty symbol of "showing you care". It has nothing to do with an objective intellectual assessment of how society should work.

scooterscot
6th February 2012, 09:52
So how come all the non-intellgent right wingers are rich?

Perhaps because the banks put them there in the first place.

xoggoth
6th February 2012, 09:59
The less inteligent probably rely more on instinct, hence right wing, and that makes their views more realistic and practical, unlike the often unworkable, idealistic nonsense of the intellectual.

DodgyAgent
6th February 2012, 10:02
The problem with all this bulltulip is that the "right wing" politics they talk about are actualy much more aligned with what would be seen as far left than they are with Tory.
There is an idea of a political compass that compares attitudes in 4 directions rather than 2 which ends up with the far right incredibly close in ideology to the far left though their reasons for being there are somewhat different.

Exactly. For example the nationalist so called "far right" party of le pen is more left wing than any of the other parties

DodgyAgent
6th February 2012, 10:05
The less inteligent probably rely more on instinct, hence right wing, and that makes their views more realistic and practical, unlike the often unworkable, idealistic nonsense of the intellectual.

Intellectuals have real difficulty with emotional intelligence because they cannot communicate thoughts or actions at simple levels. So either they behave in an elitist manner - in other words they are too important to engage with lesser beings - or they patronise - by calling themselves "left wing"

Churchill
6th February 2012, 10:05
Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html)

And all that posted by a Pseudo-intellectual w4nker. Jolly well done!

EternalOptimist
6th February 2012, 10:06
I am unimpressed by all this 'intelligence' malarky. I have met some highly intelligent people who believe in the most absurd things, and I have met one person who believed very strongly in one thing on monday, then the opposite thing on friday.
He had a religious conversion from one faith to another
when I asked him how he could have been so wrong on the monday - he looked genuinely puzzled, when I asked him if he might change his mind again and flip back - he got VERY annoyed

So I dont think intelligence is any guarantee of getting things right



:rolleyes:

EternalOptimist
6th February 2012, 10:14
And all that posted by a Pseudo-intellectual w4nker. Jolly well done!

good point, well made.

There is something outside intelligence that we dont yet understand (i dont anyway)
but there are a couple of clues.

some people have the answer then scrabble around for the supporting evidence, we call them pseudos, some people have bits of evidence and scrabble around for a meaning, we call them blue sky thinkers, some people cant br @rsed and concentrate on eating, making money and procreating. We call them grounded


:rolleyes:

sasguru
6th February 2012, 10:26
I'm a highly intelligent right-winger who knows you're all cliche-spewing cretins.

vetran
6th February 2012, 10:27
hilarious, most 'left wingers' still believe in communism, even after Animal farm put the risks of such beliefs in baby talk.

Note most educational establishments are populated by the left wing, could it be our measurement of 'intelligence' is tilted towards the skills of the left wing?

My Daughter's homework yesterday was discussing flooding, she was adamant that it was all caused by 'Global warming' no consideration of deforestation, siting of housing etc. Its like a religion in academe.

Churchill
6th February 2012, 10:28
I'm a delusional onanist who has to wear a steak around my neck for the dog to play with me and you all smell of poo!

Kids, eh? :facepalm:

DodgyAgent
6th February 2012, 10:36
hilarious, most 'left wingers' still believe in communism, even after Animal farm put the risks of such beliefs in baby talk.

Note most educational establishments are populated by the left wing, could it be our measurement of 'intelligence' is tilted towards the skills of the left wing?

My Daughter's homework yesterday was discussing flooding, she was adamant that it was all caused by 'Global warming' no consideration of deforestation, siting of housing etc. Its like a religion in academe.

It is interesting that communism is still talked about as if it were still an acceptable ideology today despite it being discredited as fascism has been. very eloquently argued by Janet Daley in the Telegraph on saturday:

The lessons of the fall of communism have still not been learnt - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9061328/The-lessons-of-the-fall-of-communism-have-still-not-been-learnt.html)

The failure of communism should have been, after all, not just a turning point in geo-political power – the ending of the Cold War and the break-up of the Warsaw Pact – but in modern thinking about the state and its relationship to the economy, about collectivism vs individualism, and about public vs private power. Where was the discussion, the trenchant analysis, or the fundamental debate about how and why the collectivist solutions failed, which should have been so pervasive that it would have percolated down from the educated classes to the bright 18-year-olds? Fascism is so thoroughly (and, of course, rightly) repudiated that even the use of the word as a casual slur is considered slanderous, while communism, which enslaved more people for longer (and also committed mass murder), is regarded with almost sentimental condescension.

sasguru
6th February 2012, 10:37
Kids, eh? :facepalm:

Good being a dad, eh doggy?:smile

DodgyAgent
6th February 2012, 10:38
Good being a dad, eh doggy?:smile

Ask his milkman :laugh

Churchill
6th February 2012, 11:09
Ask his milkman :laugh

This "projection" thing isn't fooling anyone, you do know that, don't you?

At least you love them as though they're your own, eh? On that thought, when did your eldest first ask, "Mummy, why isn't Daddy black?"?

DodgyAgent
6th February 2012, 11:11
This "projection" thing isn't fooling anyone, you do know that, don't you?

At least you love them as though they're your own, eh? On that thought, when did your eldest first ask, "Mummy, why isn't Daddy black?"?

When he first caught sight of my Todger

sasguru
6th February 2012, 11:12
This "projection" thing isn't fooling anyone, you do know that, don't you?

At least you love them as though they're your own, eh? On that thought, when did your eldest first ask, "Mummy, why isn't Daddy black?"?

I think DA only realised the truth when one of "his" kids got an A at school.

sasguru
6th February 2012, 11:13
When he first caught sight of my Todger

You've got a black todger? Have you seen the doc? It may drop off you know.

scooterscot
6th February 2012, 11:21
The less inteligent probably rely more on instinct, hence right wing, and that makes their views more realistic and practical, unlike the often unworkable, idealistic nonsense of the intellectual.

So you're a right winger then?

Churchill
6th February 2012, 11:23
So you're a right whinger then?

Shirley?

pjclarke
6th February 2012, 12:18
Very leftwing thinkers, as CAGW believers tend to be, are very similar to very rightwing thinkers, blinkered. I think you'll find most intellectuals somewhere in the centre. You may be onto something; it is certainly the case that those who deny what the science is telling us tend to be on the free-market, libertarian right (http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climate-change/)



Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure that the world has seen, Sir Nicholas Stern, whose review last year warned of the economic and social costs of climate change, said tonight.

Stern: Climate change a 'market failure' | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/29/climatechange.carbonemissions)

DodgyAgent
6th February 2012, 12:30
You may be onto something; it is certainly the case that those who deny what the science is telling us tend to be on the free-market, libertarian right (http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climate-change/)



Stern: Climate change a 'market failure' | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/29/climatechange.carbonemissions)

Yes that is true. It is interesting that your lot are led by those who think that the rest of society owes them a living and people who are serial public servants. There is a clear agenda here because climate change is being used politically to screw money out of the wealth creators.

With the morality of tax being blown apart there has to be a new "moral cause" behind taxation - climate change (whatever happened to "man made global warming?") is that morality, only it is proving a b**ger to prove:

1. That climate change is/is not desirable and
2. That we can actually do anything about it.

I for one have formed my views on the basis of the people who are making the noises about global warming. On this I am not alone particularly when I see fanatics like pjclarke coming on here serving up what is effectively utterly counter productive propaganda. So if Steve Hughes "The war on terror, global warming, what I see as the small oppressions in the West that are made out to be protections of our freedom... " and Jeremy Clarkson say global warming doesnt exist then this is good enough for me.

sasguru
6th February 2012, 12:44
Yes that is true. It is interesting that your lot are led by those who think that the rest of society owes them a living and people who are serial public servants. There is a clear agenda here because climate change is being used politically to screw money out of the wealth creators.

With the morality of tax being blown apart there has to be a new "moral cause" behind taxation - climate change (whatever happened to "man made global warming?") is that morality, only it is proving a b**ger to prove:

1. That climate change is/is not desirable and
2. That we can actually do anything about it.

I for one have formed my views on the basis of the people who are making the noises about global warming. On this I am not alone particularly when I see fanatics like pjclarke coming on here serving up what is effectively utterly counter productive propaganda. So if Steve Hughes "The war on terror, global warming, what I see as the small oppressions in the West that are made out to be protections of our freedom... " and Jeremy Clarkson say global warming doesnt exist then this is good enough for me.

Sorry Dodgy, but you really are an incredibly stupid man :laugh:laugh

EternalOptimist
6th February 2012, 12:44
Yes that is true. It is interesting that your lot are led by those who think that the rest of society owes them a living and people who are serial public servants. There is a clear agenda here because climate change is being used politically to screw money out of the wealth creators.

With the morality of tax being blown apart there has to be a new "moral cause" behind taxation - climate change (whatever happened to "man made global warming?") is that morality, only it is proving a b**ger to prove:

1. That climate change is/is not desirable and
2. That we can actually do anything about it.

I for one have formed my views on the basis of the people who are making the noises about global warming. On this I am not alone particularly when I see fanatics like pjclarke coming on here serving up what is effectively utterly counter productive propaganda. So if Steve Hughes "The war on terror, global warming, what I see as the small oppressions in the West that are made out to be protections of our freedom... " and Jeremy Clarkson say global warming doesnt exist then this is good enough for me.

I am actually quite fond of pj. he is one of the best advocates we have.

Strange how he doesn't see it, what with being so intelligent and all



:rolleyes:

DodgyAgent
6th February 2012, 12:47
Sorry Dodgy, but you really are an incredibly stupid man :laugh:laugh

I like keeping things simple

pjclarke
6th February 2012, 12:58
What! our foremost thinker Jeremy Clarkson (http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/20/a-real-time-experiment-with-human-lives/) doubts the existence of climate change? Why didn't you say earlier?

I am going to have to completely rethink my position.

russell
6th February 2012, 13:01
Obama vs Palin, I rest my case.

DodgyAgent
6th February 2012, 13:12
What! our foremost thinker Jeremy Clarkson (http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/20/a-real-time-experiment-with-human-lives/) doubts the existence of climate change? Why didn't you say earlier?

I am going to have to completely rethink my position.

He like me enjoys simplicity :happy and to be honest I would rather my children grew up living on man made islands than living under the control of your lot

sasguru
6th February 2012, 13:18
I like keeping things simple


He like me enjoys simplicity :....


"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein

BlasterBates
6th February 2012, 13:21
You may be onto something; it is certainly the case that those who deny what the science is telling us tend to be on the free-market, libertarian right (http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climate-change/)



Stern: Climate change a 'market failure' | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/29/climatechange.carbonemissions)

KInd of contradicting yourself, as the other study shows.

Just as a reminder:


On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.

But then again climate change advocacy was never really about intellectually robust arguments.

xoggoth
6th February 2012, 13:42
Not sure how this got onto climate change but it's a subject that does indicate the extent to which people argue pointlessly over theory or abstract ideas. It really doesn't matter much if climate change is true or not, the goals of both sides should be largely the same since CO2 emission=fossil fuel use.

a) We need to reduce non renewable fuel use anyway due to diminishing resources, increasing population and the fact that potentially hostile states have so much of it.

b) We need technologies and policies that actually work and that should be judged on science. No point in technology that uses more fuel to set up than it saves or daft green taxes that destroy efficient western industries and drive production to places like China where the only concern is growth.

DodgyAgent
6th February 2012, 13:57
Not sure how this got onto climate change but it's a subject that does indicate the extent to which people argue pointlessly over theory or abstract ideas. It really doesn't matter much if climate change is true or not, the goals of both sides should be largely the same since CO2 emission=fossil fuel use.

a) We need to reduce non renewable fuel use anyway due to diminishing resources, increasing population and the fact that potentially hostile states have so much of it.

b) We need technologies and policies that actually work and that should be judged on science. No point in technology that uses more fuel to set up than it saves or daft green taxes that destroy efficient western industries and drive production to places like China where the only concern is growth.

Very well put Xog