'Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers', says study

old hippy

44leto wrote: »

But I will be condescended upon, but I suppose that is you aswell.

You mean "as well"

44leto

old hippy wrote: »

You mean "as well"

How would you know what i mean.:D

Logical Fallacy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Based on averages really , a lot of the smartest and richest oeople in the workd have fairly right wing views

Indeed, but it's important to look at these people, their views and when and where they held the views. As you said, these people are smart and you don't get in with a Right Wing government if you are speaking from the Left.

A lot of the time with powerful public figures who express a political view you cannot be sure it is what they really feel.

Greentopia

Balmed Out wrote: »

Re-read what I said.

I did, I don't see anything in what I said that misinterprets your post.

Balmed Out wrote: »

Long term professional welfare scroungers id bet are more likely to have prejudiced attitudes.

(i have no proof im just being prejudiced :-) )

Do you reckon they vote left or right wing?

I don't see what one has to do with the other.
As "professional welfare scroungers" as you put it come from all walks of society I would imagine both, but perhaps that minority of welfare recipients would be more likely to vote left if they thought it would keep in power those who maintain a generous welfare system. That's a separate issue from prejudice though.

old hippy

44leto wrote: »

How would you know what i mean.:D

You're correct, how could I ever hope to comprehend the mindset of a right winger?

BOHtox

Perhaps socially right wingers are idiots. Any who thinks right wing economics isn't the way to go needs their heads checked.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing amongst the population and what one gets in socialism for not working, one must forego that money for working.

Greentopia

xsiborg wrote: »

*cough cough*

I did say it was just my experience though, I didn't present my observation as fact.
I also said I know not all conservatives are homophobes or racists.

old hippy

BOHtox wrote: »

Perhaps socially right wingers are idiots. Any who thinks right wing economics isn't the way to go needs their heads checked.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing amongst the population and what one gets in socialism for not working, one must forego that money for working.

Perhaps us leftopians are godless, pink wristed heathens - not worshipping mammon :rolleyes:

Greentopia

44leto wrote: »

But I will be condescended upon, but I suppose that is you aswell.

No condescension meant, genuinely.

c_man

I don't agree with a centrally planned economy. Nor with the state having any say in what adults do in private.

Most people might trump me as a 'right winger' owing to my economic stances but is that correct? Is a SFer who excuses the murder civilians for national territorial gain more intelligent than us because (s)he's 'left wing'?

Logical Fallacy

I've never really understood the sense of describing yourself as left or right wing to be honest. It just shows a degree of blindness to the actual complexities of social, economic and political issues.

It also seems to go hand in hand with a degree of reactionary thinking as if the person finds more aspects of their opposing viewpoint repugnant than they can find attractions to the political ground they find themselves drawing a line on.

I'd be much happier if people would actual think about the details of any topic and decide how they really feel and worry a lot less about whether their viewpoint is right or left or centrist.

John Doe1

So you are saying that this person is not an intellectual unbermensch?

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rls=com.microsoft:en-ie:IE-SearchBox&biw=1024&bih=578&tbm=isch&tbnid=jer-lla_xyrj6M:&imgrefurl=http://williamkendallbooks.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-is-no-flippin-way-to-launch.html&docid=_4rbn7AdkOAF6M&imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RdF7S0TNAHY/TOVYmBqvHMI/AAAAAAAAAIA/uvGMvoTV-5M/s1600/yaaay-shiny-object-palin.jpg&w=500&h=392&ei=1-YrT-_nCcbt-gb-ysmeDg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=154&sig=110596913359927558354&page=1&tbnh=165&tbnw=222&start=0&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0&tx=124&ty=33

44leto

If people were to learn anything from history which off course we don't and carry on repeating the mistakes of yester years. We should run to the hills every time socialism is mentioned.

Let us look at some of its stars, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Castro and many more. It what happens when a society pursues a utopia over individual rights.

Temptamperu

44leto wrote: »

If people were to learn anything from history which off course we don't and carry on repeating the mistakes of yester years. We should run to the hills every time socialism is mentioned.

Let us look at some of its stars, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Castro and many more. It what happens when a society pursues a utopia over individual rights.

Thats communism, not socialism.

southsiderosie

I don't think the way the implications of this research shakes out is that people vote 'traditional' conservative (i.e. Tories). In Europe, this demographic votes for populist conservatives: anti-globalization, anti-immigration, somewhat nationalistic. So, yes, you can have people who are populist conservatives who would still support a welfare state.

The funny thing in Ireland though is that none of the parties 'fit' on a traditional European political axis. Labour is quite moderate for European social democrats, Fianna Fail are center-right populists, and Fine Gael are kind of Christian Democrats, with the occasional surprise. And Sinn Fein as a party is pretty liberal on a lot of social and economic matters (immigration, social welfare), yet their voting base (working class/poor, urban, somewhat disgruntled with the current situation) in most other European countries would lean towards voting for populist conservatives. Irish politics are a complete outlier in Europe, and really among most democracies.

Seachmall

44leto wrote: »

If people were to learn anything from history which off course we don't and carry on repeating the mistakes of yester years. We should run to the hills every time socialism is mentioned.

Let us look at some of its stars, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Castro and many more. It what happens when a society pursues a utopia over individual rights.

Hhhhmmm...

token101

It's the ultimate left wing fundamentalist thing to say though isn't it? They don't agree with, therefore they must be less intelligent. Democracy should be about choice, not having views inflicted upon you by those who are arrogant enough to believe they are the intelligentsia.

They mention 'conservative' and then they have a picture of the Klu Klux Klan FFS :rolleyes: Utter nonsense.

southsiderosie

44leto wrote: »

If people were to learn anything from history which off course we don't and carry on repeating the mistakes of yester years. We should run to the hills every time socialism is mentioned.

Let us look at some of its stars, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Castro and many more. It what happens when a society pursues a utopia over individual rights.

Typical ridiculous knee-jerk response - every time someone mentions conservatives, should we throw up Pinochet, Rios Mott, etc?

Lenin, Mao, et al are totalitarian regimes. European socialism in most of its guises really means social democrats. And most Mediterranean countries still have traditional socialist parties that, as far as I can tell, have not shoved people into gulags. So please stop with the anti-socialist hysteria.

44leto

Temptamperu wrote: »

Thats communism, not socialism.

And Fascism if a party has socialism in its name, run, run and don't look back, that is a lesson from history, but as it goes "we will do it right this time round".

Temptamperu

44leto wrote: »

And Fascism if a party has socialism in its name, run, run and don't look back, that is a lesson from history, but as it goes "we will do it right this time round".

Although The nazi party was the national socialist party they did some cool stuff like putting the country working again before all the final solution malarky and it ran the country in more a capatilistic manner. The leader was the problem he took over the national socialist party by feeding on everyones fears of outsiders.

Hitler was as rightwing as you can get.

all the rest you mentioned where communist not socialist.

There are a few socialist countries in europe who are doing very well at the moment. Unlike capitalism which is drowning.

44leto

Temptamperu wrote: »

Although The nazi party was the national socialist party they did some cool stuff like putting the country working again before all the final solution malarky and it ran the country in more a capatilistic manner. The leader was the problem he took over the national socialist party by feeding on everyones fears of outsiders.

Hitler was as rightwing as you can get.

all the rest you mentioned where communist not socialist.

There are a few socialist countries in europe who are doing very well at the moment. Unlike capitalism which is drowning.

Say what you want about capitalism but in truth that system has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system tried in history. Just recently it is in evidence with the rising middle classes of India and China.

The western European social democracies are now crippled with debt and those countries and us are now clawing back the socialist model, because we can no longer afford it.

CL7

I love how people have no problem with the Daily Mail's integrity when it suits their agenda.

Seachmall

SnoogyDoogy wrote: »

I love how people have no problem with the Daily Mail's integrity when it suits their agenda.

It's been brought up on AH at least 2 or 3 times before. It's one of those repeating topics and people just accept it and proceed to slug it out.

Sauce [PDF].

Note use of the word "Hypothesis".

token101

Seachmall wrote: »

It's been brought up on AH at least 2 or 3 times before. It's one of those repeating topics.

Sauce.

I like the way the title is a not a question, but a conclusion. By Social Psychology Quarterly? Self indulgent, academic nonsense :rolleyes:

twinQuins

I like the way you say "academic" like it's a bad thing.

Chuck Stone

44leto wrote: »

Say what you want about capitalism but in truth that system has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system tried in history. Just recently it is in evidence with the rising middle classes of India and China.

Well it can be argued that Communism lifted the Soviet Union from feudalism to an industrial giant that sent men into space in a matter of decades etc. (at great cost of course).

The western European social democracies are now crippled with debt and those countries and us are now clawing back the socialist model, because we can no longer afford it.

Yes but they're partly crippled because the capitalist model wasn't allowed to fail i.e. socialism for the elite.

I wish people who claim to be 'right wing' in economic policy would use the term 'free market'. Right wing in an economic sense is just the use of the state to further corporate ambitions/profits and as insulation from the actual free market.

Temptamperu

twinQuins wrote: »

I like the way you say "academic" like it's a bad thing.

God damn them academics with their college words and their book reading :pac:

Seachmall

token101 wrote: »

I like the way the title is a not a question, but a conclusion. By Social Psychology Quarterly? Self indulgent, academic nonsense :rolleyes:

Just as note: The reason presented for the apparent correlation in the paper is the hypothesis. That statistics that, on average, liberals are more intelligent is not being debated. It is true (at least for the sampled people), the "why" is the question trying to be answered.

And as far as I'm aware there's nothing wrong Social Psychology Quarterly. It's as peer reviewed as any other journal.

Greentopia

Temptamperu wrote: »

Thats communism, not socialism.

Not even Communism (at least not how Marx and Engels envisaged), more like Autocratic Authoritarian Statism.

gcgirl

Temptamperu wrote: »

44leto wrote: »

If people were to learn anything from history which off course we don't and carry on repeating the mistakes of yester years. We should run to the hills every time socialism is mentioned.

Let us look at some of its stars, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Castro and many more. It what happens when a society pursues a utopia over individual rights.

Thats communism, not socialism.

Totalitarian more so apart from Castro
I think Cuba would be rightly classed as communist

44leto

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Well it can be argued that Communism lifted the Soviet Union from feudalism to an industrial giant that sent men into space in a matter of decades etc. (at great cost of course).

At the cost of roughly 70 million people

Yes but they're partly crippled because the capitalist model wasn't allowed to fail i.e. socialism for the elite.

I don't understand you there, but I do swing to the right, that's my excuse we are thicker

I wish people who claim to be 'right wing' in economic policy would use the term 'free market'. Right wing in an economic sense is just the use of the state to further corporate ambitions/profits and as insulation from the actual free market.

Our comfortable wealthy western lifestyles are a product of democratic capitalism it does serve the wealthy but society as well. Its not perfect, but by nature no human system will be.

.

44leto

gcgirl wrote: »

Totalitarian more so apart from Castro
I think Cuba would be rightly classed as communist

Read up on Castro, he is not such a shining light, he has a big secret police and a lot of political prisoners, he is just another socialist lunatic.

Temptamperu

44leto wrote: »

Read up on Castro, he is not such a shining light, he has a big secret police and a lot of political prisoners, he is just another socialist lunatic.

Maybe this will help though you righties are afraid to learn shít.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Greentopia

44leto wrote: »

Say what you want about capitalism but in truth that system has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system tried in history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JroogX7zBek

Sorry Chuck, not copying you referencing Chomsky! it's just the best argument I have found that says the truth about Capitalism. And well...I love Chomsky.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes but they're partly crippled because the capitalist model wasn't allowed to fail i.e. socialism for the elite.

44leto wrote: »

I don't understand you there

Much of the debt acquired in the west has been because the capitalist system (as we know it) failed and had to be bailed out by the tax-payer i.e. socialized.

In a real free market the 'capitalist' system may well have collapsed.

token101

twinQuins wrote: »

I like the way you say "academic" like it's a bad thing.

It's not always a good thing. You can manipulate statistics to prove any kind of abstract concept you like. It doesn't make it valid or worthwhile. This is pure ****.

Greentopia

Temptamperu wrote: »

Maybe this will help though you righties are afraid to learn shít.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Oh haven't you heard? facts have an inherent liberal bias :pac:

Chuck Stone

Greentopia wrote: »

Sorry Chuck, not copying you referencing Chomsky!

Ah jaysus of course you're not. Chomsky ain't owned by no one.

And well...I love Chomsky.

Uncle Noam cuts through the bullshit.

southsiderosie

44leto wrote: »

Say what you want about capitalism but in truth that system has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system tried in history. Just recently it is in evidence with the rising middle classes of India and China.

The western European social democracies are now crippled with debt and those countries and us are now clawing back the socialist model, because we can no longer afford it.

Given the state involvement in the economy, and in both domestic and international markets, I would hardly call China capitalist.

44leto

44leto wrote: »

The western European social democracies are now crippled with debt and those countries and us are now clawing back the socialist model, because we can no longer afford it.

Ah yes that explains why the Scandanavian conutries' economies are in such bad shape. Oh wait.

The current woes of the E.U. are down to some countries going on mad spending binges with borrowed money. This can happen with either a right wing or left wing system.

In fact here we had elements of both. The right wing aspect consisted of greedy developers, banks and speculators trying to make a quick buck out of the property market using borrowed money.

The left wing aspect consisted of Bertie's "socialism", i.e. using the tax revenue from the property bubble to buy votes by increasing public sector wages and welfare.

opinion guy

old hippy wrote: »

You're correct, how could I ever hope to comprehend the mindset of a right winger?

Its pretty easy. Just watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IK4QLBnZP8

token101

Seachmall wrote: »

Just as note: The reason presented for the apparent correlation in the paper is the hypothesis. That statistics that, on average, liberals are more intelligent is not being debated. It is true (at least for the sampled people), the "why" is the question trying to be answered.

And as far as I'm aware there's nothing wrong Social Psychology Quarterly. It's as peer reviewed as any other journal.

They've taken a random sample of people. For something like 'right wing' and 'left wing', which are fairly wide generalisations to begin with, it's a bit of a broad statement to say X>Y isn't it?

Well any journal that publishes sweeping statements like that as a title isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Seachmall

token101 wrote: »

They've taken a random sample of people. For something like 'right wing' and 'left wing', which are fairly wide generalisations to begin with, it's a bit of a broad statement to say X>Y isn't it?

That's the risk with all samples, that doesn't mean sampling is irrelevant. Either-way this paper doesn't deal with the collecting of the samples, so it's a non issue. The paper starts with the assumption that Liberals are more intelligent and follows on from there in an attempt explain why. So it's a perfectly valid title.

The assumptions it begins with are sourced and supported. If you disbelieve the assumptions you're free to locate the sources and identify flaws in the methodology used. That's the power of peer-review.

Criticize the paper based on how it came to it's conclusions, not on the conclusions themselves and definitely not on it's title.

KeithAFC

Greentopia wrote: »

That quote always struck me as a load of nonsense.
And just because Churchill said it doesn't mean what he said is true. And let's not forget he was a Conservative so would have been biased against liberals anyway.

Well obviously. That is the whole point.

Tar.Aldarion

I knew a guy who is outside 2 std. dev of your statistic! It's all lies!!!11

Yahew

southsiderosie wrote: »

Given the state involvement in the economy, and in both domestic and international markets, I would hardly call China capitalist.

The State maintained some ownership of companies which also traded on stock markets and had independent boards of directors. Thats capitalist.

Ireland in 1950 wasn't communist but the State pretty much owned, and part-owned - because private capital couldn't step up to the plate - the means of production of electricity, train travel, bus travel, telephony, gas, airlines, television, medical insurance, post office, forestry, air ports, ports, Sugar, Steel, steam packets, some banks, life insurance, cable television, and a large chain of Hotels.

Some of this was guaranteed monopoly, others - the Great Southern Hotels - were not. They traded in the market place, with other competitors, which is similar to the Chinese system now. China is richer because it has loosened State control.

see here.

That probably employed most people outside of the actual State sector.

but we were not communist.

Herb Powell

amacachi wrote: »

If it was a leftist who did that data analysis it might be an idea to double-check the figures, lefties tend not to understand that one number being bigger than another can be a problem.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Fitting the stereotype much?

Pacifist Pigeon

I don't think that the article considers the full scope of what it means to be left wing. It boils being "right-wing" solely down to social issue, i.e., "racist and anti-gay views". You can be economically right-wing, socially right-wing or a mix of the two.

I would consider myself very socially left-wing (gay marriage/adoption, abortion, legalisation of drugs, etc.), while at the same time having very libertarian economically right-wing views (separation of the economy and the state). I basically disagree with the involvement of the states in all spheres - economically and socially. Objectivist individualism, basically. I think I may be somewhere in between a minarchist and an anarchist.

04KY

Seachmall wrote: »

And as far as I'm aware there's nothing wrong Social Psychology Quarterly. It's as peer reviewed as any other journal.

Whatever about nothing being wrong with Social Psychology Quarterly, the author of the paper seems a bit controversial. Link.

Also his methods of measuring intelligence are questionable.

Another Link.

Pacifist Pigeon

Yahew wrote: »

The State maintained some ownership of companies which also traded on stock markets and had independent boards of directors. Thats capitalist.

Wouldn't that be corporatism?