Conservatism and intelligence

[Scarfman]

So, you have nothing of value to add, Scotty, except sarcasm? I could have added to my opening post: "I'm sure Scotty will be along in a minute to mock intellectuals and generally obfuscate the discussion." But by all means, son, keep going, shift the goalposts, present ideological assertions as common sense, do your thing.

(And before a mod tells me to play the ball not the man, there is no ball. Scotty is the Richie McCaw of the Politics Board.)

 

[Scotty]

Firstly, why is this sarcastic?

Anyway, does the study actually mention a correlation to conservative politics or just social conservatism? I don't necessarily believe these are one in the same, like you are trying to make out they are, Dr Scarfman.

There are plenty of socially conservative people on both sides of the political divide in his country.

Secondly, what did you expect when you started a thread denigrating the intelligence of conservative voters? I assumed (wrongly), that you were intelligent enough to work out what their response would be.

And of course your use of 'son' above is meant to be condescending, further reinforcing the stance with which you've started this thread.

 

[Gagger]

I thought Scotty did pretty damn well not to bite for three days.

Even forced you to stir the pot there Scarfie!

 

[Joe Mac]

I have just stumbled across this thread so apologies if I am a little off topic here;

Scarfy, without reading the article are you saying that there is a strong correlation of low intelligence people voting conservative? Likewise, people of higher intelligence voting for the democrats?

 

[Rob42]

This was the part of Briggs's complaint that I found least interesting. I don't really care what we call it - "social conservative" seemed as good a label as any. If you want to know what the studies really measure, just drill down to the questions (which, I admit, not everyone had access to):

"Social conservatism. In both the NCDS and the BCS, socially conservative ideology was assessed in terms of respect for and submission to authority (7 items in the NCDS and 10 items in the BCS; e.g., “Give law breakers stiffer sentences” and “Schools should teach children to obey authority”) and support for conventional (i.e., unequal) sex roles (6 items in both
studies; e.g., “Family life suffers if mum is working fulltime”); scale reliabilities ranged from .63 to .68 (Deary et al., 2008; Schoon et al., 2010). These measures tap socially conservative
values, including desire for law and order, punitive reactions toward wrongdoers, adherence to social conventions or traditions, and social control. Without reference to racial out-groups, these items reflect ideological orientations rooted in resistance to change and a desire to maintain existing social stratifications, making them ideal for our purposes."

Yes, but inevitably we slide from "social conservatives, as defined by their answers to the following questions, tend to be of lower intelligence" to "all conservative voters are stupid", and the discussion instantly starts to produce more heat than light.

Did people just answer those questions on a 1 to 5, strongly agree to strongly disagree type of scale? Because I think anyone of reasonable intelligence would just chuck that survey in the bin - "Schools should teach children to obey authority - yes or no?"...c'mon, they are so open to interpretation as to be basically meaningless.

 

[fatprop]

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren’t implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.​

“There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals,” Hodson said.​

 

[Scarfman]

Joe Mac and Rob - better read the thread again. Nothing about voting conservative. I've copied in the paragraph about defining social conservatism. There's a longer list of variable, of course, but I might just leave it there. The same (non-) issue arises with the definition of intelligence. There are many ways of defining intelligence, too, so you might disagree with their methodology there. But don;t forget that the 3 samples they used were generated by other researchers. This is an analysis of existing data sets.

But if the only conversation we're going to have here is to speculate (without reading the report) that the studies are technically flawed, then it's not really worth having.

 

[Cutter]

That is the funniest post you've ever posted Scotty. Dare I say it, perhaps hanging out with all of the liberals is making you smarter.

For the avoidance of doubt, the second sentence is not Scotty baiting. It is firmly tongue in cheek. I just refuse to use emoticons (I don't even like the word).

 

[Scotty]

For the avoidance of doubt, the second sentence is not Scotty baiting. It is firmly tongue in cheek. I just refuse to use emoticons (I don't even like the word).

It is ok, I worked that out.

 

[Scotty]

First, I don't think that low intelligence is correlated with social conservatism throughout time and culture. I think both sides of politics would have had long periods in the dunce's corner. But I do think that it's currently the conservatives' turn to have their numbers swelled by people who are unable to think with subtlety or complexity. I would go as far as saying that it is these peope, more than anyone else, who switched sides from Labor to Liberal as a result of John Howard's culture wars and wedge politics. This kind of research supports the view I have been asserting, and might help the political left comes to grips with the problem: how to sell policies in an emotional, mass-appeal way to "ordinary" Australians.

Nothing in this thread about voting conservative? What are you going on about above then?

 

[Paradox]

Interesting post. What is considered liberal these days? The media is quite left-leaning these days. It seems as though liberal folk are less likely to spawn children thereby ensuring the discontinuation of their genes. That's pretty dumb isn't it? Are I'm not sure what can be salvaged from this thread other than prejudice. I also believe that people tend to become more conservative with age. Justification for euthanasia? Are anarchists smarter? What about relative-liberalism? Scarfman might consider you right wing but your right wing family consider you a left wing lunatic.

 

[Cutter]

The media is quite left-leaning these days.

Is this a statement of fact based upon data analysis or your opinion?

 

[Schadenfreude]

Is this a statement of fact based upon data analysis or your opinion?

It's based on politics veering wildly to the right and the media staying where it was.

 

[Paradox]

Is this a statement of fact based upon data analysis or your opinion?

Just an opinion, like everything else on this forum

 

[Rob42]

Joe Mac and Rob - better read the thread again. Nothing about voting conservative. I've copied in the paragraph about defining social conservatism. There's a longer list of variable, of course, but I might just leave it there. The same (non-) issue arises with the definition of intelligence. There are many ways of defining intelligence, too, so you might disagree with their methodology there. But don;t forget that the 3 samples they used were generated by other researchers. This is an analysis of existing data sets.

But if the only conversation we're going to have here is to speculate (without reading the report) that the studies are technically flawed, then it's not really worth having.

I get it that you mentioned nothing about voting conservative - my point was that inevitably these conversations quickly move from talking about people who are social conservatives based on a specific definition, to wider generalisations which are inevitably unhelpful.

But going back to the initial premise, so what? If more stupid people hold a particular position, does that automatically make it wrong? As you mentioned, Scarf, both sides of the political spectrum can make populist arguments - it just seems that the conservative ones are more popular at the moment.

 

[Lindommer]

What is considered liberal these days? The media is quite left-leaning these days.

You obviously don't read The Australian, Paradox, with its healthy dose of Uncle Rupert's slant on things. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good newspaper, and has a broad view of events some local papers don't have, undoubtedly one of the advantages of being in the Newscorp empire. But the Oz boys cetainly don't like Gillard and her crew.

My wife's workplace subscribe to The Spectator, the Australian edition. It's another conservative, somewhat right-wing journal, but it's beautifully written and gives me another point of view. As a proudly middle-of-the-road political pundit I like to know what others are thinking.

 

[Lior]

Although the Australian is inherently biased and full of contradictions and paradoxes it is still a fantastic newspaper. They have great sections on Higher Education, Arts, Media, Business and Travel even for that matter. Even it's National Affairs coverage is first rate, despite how they frame it all. It's worth reading and I am glad I have it delivered daily, although I would avoid the opinion page where it seems an overwhelming amount of ill informed wannabes send in their partisan attacks on trivial issues. I think it is such a shame that for a first rate newspaper much of the comments in that opinion section are published. The Oz is certainly hunting for a regime change and you'd have to be ignorant to think otherwise, however despite their relentless pursuance of personalities and also their failure to critically analyse much of the policy substantively they are still quite a good newspaper.

The Spectator is a wonderful read, although I read some of it and cringe. I do enjoy reading a lot of the articles thoroughly and they are terrifically written.

Now I'm on this topic, I seriously think the Daily Telegraph truly is a threat to the economic viability of this nation, but also democracy in general. Their vitriol towards immigration as a whole is staggering, and will have huge implications on Australia's higher education sector in the future if they are enabled to run rampant like they have.

I grew up in a household where we were told to move forward and engage in critical thinking. One of my parents was a Media Professor so naturally we were skeptical of much we heard and no surprise for anyone out there we were staunch left wingers to an extent (on the social side at least). But I can understand conservative philosophy, and I don't think they should be regarded as stupid. I don't have a problem with Social Conservatives who don't support gay marriage or euthanasia, or the need for a multicultural society. They have their right to disagree, however should that conservatism adversely and substantially effect someone who is a good natured, kind hearted citizen then I have a problem. It's fair enough to oppose gay marriage, but it's not fair enough to say to that person "you fucking faggots should die" or something like that. It's fair enough to oppose immigration, but not fair enough to say it explicitly, and go down the pathway of Pauline Hanson and use such vitriolic language.

 

[Bowside]

I've long thought the difference between the left and right is that the right see's issues as black or white, whilst the left see's grey. I do not think there is neccissarily a great difference in intelligence in an IQ sense, but rather a broader type of intelligence encompassing more critical thinking, reasoning and the ability to empathise.

Evidence of this is the fact that society is almost always progressing to the left with time. Ideas of greater fairness, equality and total human progression are all the domain of the left.

However none of this is totally relevant in a real world situation as political parties are an institutionalised form of the ideology and even if the mission statement says one thing, there are almost always contradictory in their actions.

 

[Paradox]

You obviously don't read The Australian, Paradox, with its healthy dose of Uncle Rupert's slant on things. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good newspaper

I was thinking of ABC Q and A for some reason

 

[Scotty]

Evidence of this is the fact that society is almost always progressing to the left with time. Ideas of greater fairness, equality and total human progression are all the domain of the left..

I have so many issues with what you say here, but let me ask a couple of questions first:
1. What political system is furthest to the left?
2. Does it result in fairness, equality and human progression?