Discover magazine has determined that social conservatives have lower IQ on average that those who are more liberal on social issues. More intriguing was the way the authors of the study the article references make the blanket assumption that social conservatives are almost all racists and homophobes by default:
Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.
I wonder what they’d make of the editors here at Traditional Christianity. Maybe we really are special snowflakes.
* Yes, I realize that stupider is not a word.
Laceagate
February 2, 2012
I want to know who provided the funding for that “study.”
Marxist-Leninist girl
February 2, 2012
Why the interest on IQ on this blog? I got over that a year ago.
I think Marxist-Leninists have the highest IQ relative to Trotskyists, left-communists, anarchists, and, of course, liberals.
Tom
February 2, 2012
Intelligence and wisdom aren’t the same. All things being equal, I’d much rather have wisdom – something liberals sorely lack.
Elspeth
February 2, 2012
It wasn’t about IQ as much as irony. None of the lead editors here are white and have nothing to gain by being racist yet they concluded that most social conservatives are racist, mainly because we’re dumber.
And make no mistake: While I am fully aware that any person of any ethnicity can be racist, the standard line among liberals is that blacks can’t be racist. So the implications are unmistakable
I found the thing interesting and ironic when I consider the gang that gathers here.
David Collard
February 2, 2012
Also discussed here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/social-conservatives-have-a-lower-i-q-probably/
Razib Khan runs that blog. He is a socially conservative atheist.
There is a lot of question-begging in the study. Nobody approved of homosexuality until about thirty years ago. Now it is a liberal shibboleth. There is a long list of bad ideas supported by progressives: eugenics, easy divorce, feminism, abortion, Marxism, and now “gay marriage”. They have a terrible track record, but they still see themselves as smart.
Marxist-Leninist girl
February 2, 2012
Could you provide any evidence that liberals in general lack “wisdom” (however defined) relative to conservatives.
As for myself, I abhor both, for different reasons, of course.
BTW, am I the most economically left person anyone has ever met online. Am I more left than anyone on this blog has met in real life?
Alte
February 2, 2012
No. I know people who have lived in communes, so they’re walking the walk.
Clarence
February 2, 2012
David Collard:
I’d really like to know what you mean by “nobody approved of homosexuality until about 30 years ago”, because there were whole societies that didn’t freak out about men who liked other men. Also, while I’m perfectly fine with allowing for church exemptions and heck, not even attaching the label “marriage” to it ( as some people seem to worship that title) I don’t have a problem with domestic partnerships, at least as long as we are going to insist one has to be married to have the ability to give property or legal guardianship to a partner , to sign up on a group or employer sponsored health plan, or to visit someone in the hospital. I hope this doesn’t make me a destroyer of marriage because I want to end such discrimination. While I’m not gay and only have a few bisexual friends so it doesn’t really affect me, I don’t see the need to continue such practices. Of course this is all US centric. I don’t know how things work where you are.
As for the ‘evidence’ that conservatives are stupid – lets just say the verdict isn’t in yet.
David Collard
February 2, 2012
Clarence,
I remember. I was there. At best, it was tolerated. It was regarded with disgust.
David Collard
February 2, 2012
Clarence, a personal anecdote. My mother used to loathe homosexuals. She is a rather liberal woman, but she loathed them. It used to rather shock me. A few years ago, she finally ” got the memo ” and she now has the PC view. I expect it was listening to our public broadcaster. Liberals have strong stomachs for things like abortion, communist dictatorships and aberrant sex. I don’t.
Clarence
February 2, 2012
Shrugs.
I don’t know where “there” is, David.
I’ve found that people can be amenable to reason about this subject, even as I think most homo rights activists don’t (with the exception of the issues I listed above) have a very important cause. I don’t think it should be a crime to call homosexuality a sin via stupid hate speech codes or something like that and anyone who whines about gay jokes gets no sympathy from me, though of course while I don’t like vulgar jokes I’m open to just about every race, sex, sexual proclivity, religion, political orientation and a million others being joked about.
Yes, I know that normal straight men such as myself usually view the thought of what homosexuals do with disgust for various reasons , but I will say that at least some of it is outwardly exaggerated when in a locker room or environment like that because no one wants to have “gay” cooties, and of course any bisexual people in attendance are smart enough to cover up their tendencies as well. In fact, I suspect most straight men have always been less disgusted by the existence of the person than the act itself and tend to be ok with it if it is out of sight and out of mind. In other words, live and let live. Of course there are real “homophobes” and also there are bullies who will use the existence of the orientation as an excuse to beat on someone. I hold no respect for such people.
Marxist-Leninist girl
February 2, 2012
“No. I know people who have lived in communes, so they’re walking the walk.”
I guess they are far-leftists, if they lived in left-wing communes.
I don’t think communes appeal to a M-List; we want an actually M-L state and revere many aspects of the Soviet Union.
Statnerd
February 2, 2012
Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/03/republicans-are-more-scientifically.html
Republicans are more intelligent than Democrats on some 20 issues (the exception being evolution). There will be a brighter tomorrow, but only if responsible journalists shine the light of truth.
Gabriella
February 2, 2012
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
David Collard
February 2, 2012
In Australia, in popular Western culture, until very recently. Homosexuality was viewed with horror. It was a cutural trope. Suddenly, it was not. Now we have to “celebrate” it.
It might be worth looking it up on TV Tropes. The website. They will probably have examples of quite recent uses of homosexuality as a negative.
Laceagate
February 2, 2012
You forget that homosexuality is more “diverse,” DC. At a workplace, when someone is gay if you aren’t celebrating it and congratulating them for wanting to get married or whatever it is, you’re a bigot.
Stewart
February 2, 2012
Indeed:
It is amazing how fast things can change.
It is also interesting that so many free thinking individuals managed to simultaneously all change their opinion on this issue without any new information coming to light.
Anonymous age 69
February 2, 2012
For me, it’s a case of live and let live, but not in my neighborhood.
Under the freedom of association concepts, I don’t want to associate with homosexuals. I don’t want to hear about who they “were with” last night.
My views have changed over the years. Around 20 years ago, a friend told me I should not even think about their sex acts, because they are not important. He said most of his contact, which includes kinfolk, when they walk in a room they are trying to see how they can get the people there fighting among themselves.
I can’t say it is true of all homosexuals. I can say it has been true of all I have known in the last 20 years.
And, no, I will never ‘celebrate’ homosexuality. Just leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Pretty much how I feel about many categories of people, no more, no less.
David Collard
February 2, 2012
“Celebrate”. Such a lovely Orwellian word. I remember that when the Gang of Four collapsed in China, some provinces were designated as official celebration provinces.
Ingemar
February 3, 2012
I think TVTropes is a fair gauge of leftist attitudes. It assumes a smart person is a left-liberal non-American atheist with at least a touch of kink. And entries/examples about fan service or attractiveness always takes pains not to exclude the LGBT crowd.
David Collard
February 3, 2012
Ingemar, I actually enjoy TV Tropes. It seems to be written largely by rather jolly nerds. There is a Left bias, but that is true of most such things. I don’t find the bias too disturbing. There is a jollity about the site that militates against the worst political correctness too.
My point was that homosexuality was used as a negative trope until very recently, including by the progressives of the day. I believe Orwell himself ( no joke ) has been censored because of a reference to homosexuals.
Not long ago, I was reading a SF novel, Mutant 59: the Plastic Eaters, or some such title by Kit Pedlar and another writer. It contained a negative portrayal of a homosexual. Pedlar would have been perfectly “progressive” for the time (the 1970s). But, as I said, NOBODY supported homosexuality then.
One of the great things about being fairly socially conservative is that one doesn’t have to constantly revisit one’s core values.
Ingemar
February 3, 2012
Who said I didn’t like TV Tropes?
That said, sometimes its left bias make me eyeroll. I once read a sentence that included “you don’t have to have a Ph.D. in sociology to–” Right.
David Collard
February 3, 2012
It is written by individuals with an interest. Their views vary. They certainly aren’t lockstep leftists. Sometimes there will be a conservative voice. They even reflect Manosphere ideas. Check out their article on The Fairer Sex.
I find it less biased than Wikipedia. Not that Wikipedia is that bad overall.
alcestiseshtemoa
February 5, 2012
I disagree with Clarence and I wholeheartedly agree with David Collard. Clarence I have no wish to offend you but you have swallowed hook, line and sinker a completely revisionist view of history. Homosexuality has been as a whole interpreted as immoral and in public it wasn’t displayed nor celebrated even if it was practiced privately (that is the consensus of most societies but not all). Yes Clarence including those “societies that didn’t freak out about men who liked other men”. Many ancient societies had more of a mentality that the heterosexual nuclear family was the building block of society (e.g. arranged marriages, reproduction), unlike “modern gays” and their enraged gay activism, and homosexuality as an orientation didn’t exist until the somewhere between the 18th and 20th century. I can just imagine you accusing me of being a bully simply because I disagree with homosexuality. If anything, as with the hysteria over feminist rape statistics, the hysteria over gay suicide rates and bullying is a fabric of one’s imagination.
alcestiseshtemoa
February 5, 2012
Discover magazine has determined that social conservatives have lower IQ on average that those who are more liberal on social issues.
About half of the high IQ people of any society follow the current cultural winds and bow to those in power. The other half high IQ people are less likely to follow the current power structure of society. Intellectuals aren’t always rulers.
alcestiseshtemoa
February 5, 2012
homosexuality as an orientation didn’t exist until the somewhere between the 18th and 20th century.
Many apologies Alte for my spelling mistake. I meant “homosexuality as an orientation didn’t exist until somewhere between the 18th and the 20th century.”