feh...
Posted on 02/13/2012 11:35:51 AM PST by Olog-hai
Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.
Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analyzed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.
The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.
Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not—it's innate intelligence, according to the academics.
Social status also appears to play no part.
The study, by academics at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, used information from two UK studies from 1958 and 1970 , where several thousand children were assessed for intelligence at age 10 and 11, and then asked political questions aged 33.
The 1958 National Child Development involved 4,267 men and 4,537 women born in 1958.
The British Cohort Study involved 3,412 men and 3,658 women born in 1970.
It's the first time the data from these studies has been used in this way. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I have been on FR for over 10 years, owned my own successful business, have a Masters of Science in Biology and a measured IQ of 135 and consider myself Conservative/liberatian. So where does that put me in this study?
On the other hand I have liberal friends who regurgitate everything MSNBC and the NYT tells them, and haven’t had an original thought in years. Where would they be placed in this study?
The biggest problem is that you find most of the concentration of brainless liberal jackasses in the administration of most colleges and universities. The people I'm usually talking to are lower level professors. The completely brainless administrators make their life difficult, even if they profess to be liberal. If they dare show the slightest bit of conserativesm, they are singled out for extra abuse. Once they are tenured, they can be a little more outspoken. But even after achieving that status, the administration still has ways to make like difficult should they choose to. And if you are the slightest bit conservative, they will choose to.
This doesn’t jive with my university experience, admittedly a poor test of intelligence, but a marker of academic performance. Based on my experience, the overall quality of higher education could be dramatically improved by increasing the number of conservative professors and students. Too many conservatives eschew higher education because of things like work, wealth accumulation, and their extreme disdain for the company of liberals. But, this is a purely subjective observation, and an unneeded one. Genuinely intelligent people know conservatives are smarter and more culturally aware.
feh...
How did conservative get to be defined as racist? How about we define leftists as people who believe in statist policies inevitably leading to wholesale slaughter such as the 100,000,000 civilians murdered by their own governments trying to impose socialism in the 20th century?
LOL. I was very liberal for 30 years. Now I am more conservative. How can that be if political affiliation is based on “inate” intelligence?
And what about conservatives who become liberal (I know, there aren’t that many, but it does happen) - where do they get their supposedly increased “inate” intelligence?
According to the study you are stupid. Luckily, you are so dumb you cannot even read this response to know how dumb you actually are. You are also a homophobic racist. Please have any intelligent liberal, such as the ones that conducted this study, tell you what some of those words mean. Not all of them, mind you. Your pea-sized brain couldn’t begin to understand all of them at once.
Your liberal friends who can regurgitate everything on MSNBC are not only intelligent but enlightened.
I hope that answers your questions 8>)
April 19th-20th, 2002
Chicago Illinois Union
828 S. Wolcott
This conference is part of the Center's mission of helping to create a more engaged civil society, working towards social change, fostering coalitions between theorists and activists, and combating anti-intellectualism in contemporary culture. It will be both a celebration of ideas and a rigorous examination of the roles and responsibilities that intellectuals play in society.
I. Why Do Ideas Matter? (a keynote panel)
We introduce the “meta” theme of the conference by hearing “success stories” from diverse voices discussing their experiences intervening intellectually.
Timuel Black, Chicago activist; Prof. Emeritus, City Colleges of Chicago
Lonnie Bunch, President, Chicago Historical Society
Bernardine Dohrn, Northwestern University Law School, Children and Family Justice Center
Gerald Graff, UIC, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences
Richard Rorty, Stanford University, Philosophy
III. Lunch and Public Encounters
Alternative breakout tours led by Chicago activists. Tours of Bronzeville and other communities, and visits to organizations that are working on partnering theorists with activists.
IV. Intellectuals in Times of Crisis
Experiences and applications of intellectual work in urgent situations.
William Ayers, UIC, College of Education; author of Fugitive Days
Douglass Cassel, Northwestern University, Center for International Human Rights
Cathy Cohen, University of Chicago, Political Science
Salim Muwakkil, Chicago Tribune; In These Times
Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator
Barbara Ransby, UIC, African-American Studies (moderator)
The Center for Public Intellectuals
University of Illinois-Chicago (UIC):
http://www.uic.edu/classes/las/las400/conferencealt.htm
_____________________________________________________
"Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!"
-Weather Underground leader and wife of Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn ("intellectual"), referring to the Manson murders
Article: Allies in War -by David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 17, 2001
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=63512670-BF7C-42A0-B41D-5D0FB9E09C09
_____________________________________________________
"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at"
--Bill Ayers ("intellectual") (1970), quoted in New York Times, September 11, 2001:
Article: "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
_____________________________________________________
"It was at the Chicago home of [Bill] Ayers and [Bernardine] Dohrn that ["intellectual"] Obama, then an up-and-coming 'community organizer,' had his political coming out party in 1995. Not content with this rite of passage in Lefty World — where unrepentant terrorists are regarded as progressive luminaries, still working 'only to educate' — both Obamas tended to the relationship with the Ayers."
Article: The Company He Keeps:
Meet Obama’s circle: The same old America-hating Left
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=&w=MA==
Same here, but when I sent them you tube clips of 0 bummer saying he had campaigned in all 57 states, they never bothered to reply. Part of my email read: "Real genius you voted for in the election".
Wow. These questions are getting really hard.
And what about the level of intelligence of these idiots who did the study? Probably got the information from the same place the AGW did.
What comes to mind is Steve Jobs, the great California hippie liberal, who bragged that others should have dropped acid & gone to an ashram, as he did, for a more mind-expanding experience.
This was the same guy who, years later, eschewed medical invention for his cancer and instead tried psychics and every crackpot diet he could find on the web. After the cancer had spread to his liver he regretted not going for surgery sooner.
This kind of “liberal” IQ seems to be a double-edged sword: so brilliant & creative in the imagination, so delusional & distorted in the real world. Combined with a narcissism (probably a by-product of it), it makes a lethal combination.
“Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers”
In their dreams. What a pantload of Obama.
A prime example of deep stupidity and grandiose error is Marxism and all of its many polluted streams, branches, creeks and crocks. That variants of this falsehood still proliferate on the left today means that, as always, intelligence alone is no unknowculation against evil, darkness, and error. Hardly.
For conservative "classical" liberals, we are generally faced with an odious choice between the stupid party and the evil party.
We generally align ourselves with the former, since the former is at least susceptible to our influence, whereas the latter is not.
[.............]
"...the fundamental truths are always accessible, but they could not be imposed on those who refuse to take them into consideration."
Among other responses, truth engenders a dynamic sense of veneration -- a sense of the sacred. And this is why you will have noticed that the left attempts to surround so many of its moldy lies with the penumbra of sanctity. But the sanctity is entirely bogus -- it readily slides into the sanctimony that is intrinsic to the left. In a perverse way, this sanctimoniousness answers the human need for the sacred, but in an alternatively crudely sentimental or authoritarian manner enforced by the many varieties political correctness. (You will notice that the left's confusion of sentimentality with moral/religious depth is just as evident as their totalitarian mind control; they are not opposites but complementary -- like Hitler's sentimental love of dogs.)
This is why the left doesn't really have ideas but icons -- including "iconic ideas." It is an insidious and sinister process, because there is great psychological pressure on all us of to bow down before these false gods, as if they were actually sacred (for example, the many fawning MSM tributes to "the Goreacle"). And there is absolutely no symmetry in this.
For example, if a conservative steps in one of the left's many sacred cowpies, there is a good chance that his career will be ruined. But if a leftist offends what is actually sacred, he will be praised as someone who "speaks truth to power."
It is inconceivable that the media would trot out some moral equivalent of Christopher Hitchens to blast Martin Luther King on the occasion of his death because of the latter's embrace of dangerous socialist ideas. For one thing, few conservatives are so tasteless, not to mention enraged.
The point is that nearly every one of the leftists's core beliefs is not a proper idea but an icon, whether it is manmade global warming, being "for the little guy," affirmative action, abortion, homosexual behavior, "peace," "progress," multiculturalism, diversity -- in fact, "progressive" is the quintessence of a meaningless icon, since it bears no relationship to progress and promotes economic and social policies that ensure not just a lack of progress, but regression. For example, the "peace movement" can only bring about more war, just as affirmative action can only bring about harm to blacks.
And this is why it is so easy to be a conservative, because you no longer have to contort yourself with so many lies in order to be thoroughly consistent, both internally and externally. The left confuses their contortions with "nuance," but nuance is simply the left left brain's feeble attempt to keep reality at bay, which inevitably seeps in through the walls, ceilings, and floorboards. ........."
HERE: Deep Stupidity and the Medicine for a Nightmare ~ Robert W. Godwin, Ph.D (forensic clinical psychologist)
This is another example of libtards trying to stop debate by demonizing the right by claiming they are less intelligent on average. But objective truth does not depend on whether the believers are more intelligent or not, and does not depend on the number of believers. It depends on the demands of reason, and on compatibility with reality. And this is where right wing ideology is superior to libtardism.
Hehehe! But we have ten times more common sense as libtards!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.