Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism

[francoHFW]

That's Quebec, idiot. The Normans were French lol...

Maybe there should be a study on conservatives' grasp of simple geography???

Ontario was actually settled by the French first and parts were annex by Quebec at one time. So it has English, Scottish, French and Native influence.

" A French explorer Étienne Brûlé explored part of the area in 1610–12.[2] The English explorer Henry Hudson sailed into Hudson Bay in 1611 and claimed the area for England, but Samuel de Champlain reached Lake Huron in 1615 and French missionaries began to establish posts along the Great Lakes, forging alliances in particular with the Huron people. Permanent French settlement was hampered by their hostilities with the Iroquois five leagues (based in New York State), who were allied with the British. By the early 1650s, using both British and Dutch arms, they had succeeded in pushing other related Iroquoian speaking peoples, the Petun and Neutral Nation out of or to the fringes of territorial southern Ontario.[3] "

Link:

History of Ontario - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

My family is from Ontario and was one of the biggest Scottish families in the region and shared a town in Ontario with the Campbell Clan.

So are mine, and there are no Frenchies around Toronto , just a few way to the west. I was Fisher-Price Canada and talked to all 277 toy stores in Canada...The English had a huge advantage because French people didn't want to go to Canada or anywhere else...

 

[S.J.]

I try speaking English to the inner city racists I see, but their response is almost unintelligible.
I must keep missing the smart ones.

You must not be intelligent then. You shouldnt assume english is the best language to use.. The main goal of talking is to communicate. You should be speaking whatever language they are using.

We are now running into the trap of discussing intelligence. IQ tests are basically an accurate measure of how good you are at taking tests and nothing more. They do not measure how good you are at life. Even among the uneducated there are people who are brilliant at using their environment to it's full advantage, developing networks and support structures and providing for their families. I have known swamp men who can barely read but they can fix anything, build anything and live off the land. I have known scientists and scholars that are like walking libraries and do crosswords in ink. Swap places and they are all retarded.

IQ tests are basically a test to see how well you assimilate into the culture that created the test. There is also proof that there is no one test that can accurately measure "intelligence". Thats why I said I dont believe in them in my first post. I agree there are some brilliant people that are "uneducated" and or self taught. If you take intelligence as the ability to use known information to solve problems then you can see that IQ tests are a scam.

In other words you got a 50 on your IQ test.

Actually I got 156 but I know it doesnt mean anything. Just means I read a lot.

No, it means you're a liar.

 

[francoHFW]

"Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs. This should lead one to expect that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. However, I find that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points). I reconcile these findings with the previous literature by showing that verbal intelligence is correlated with both socially and economically liberal beliefs (β = .10–.32). My findings suggest that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans."

I presume (actually I'm pretty sure you can read)......however, the question arises as to whether you can understand what you read......If you think that the above citation counters anything but your futile hopes, then you truly cannot comprehend.

BTW, check out what the acronym, OUCA stands for......here, I'll give you a hint, the first 2 letters are for Oxford and the last 2 letters are for conservative association. Oxford has, since the 11 century, been a font of conservative thought.

And? How does that invalidate my study? You seem to think citing one from an obviously biased feminist is legitimate too.

And there are republicans in Oxford? Holy smokes man! Wow, that must really mean they're more intelligent than you give them credit for! Sorry, but even through that revelation, you still made yourself look like an idiot.

There are Tories at Oxford, the only greedy a-hole ugly Brit party that competes with the GOP for least popular jerks in the advanced world...

 

[TemplarKormac]

I NEVER stated that I was smart

Then what are you, stupid?

the lack of dumbness does not necessarily make one smart.

But your thread is insinuating that lack of intelligence is more predominant among members who share an opposing belief than yours, and seemingly omnipresent among people who share the same belief as you do. You are implying that intelligence does not exist among conservatives. Whats more the study presupposes a political belief on children who have scant idea what politics are, and attempts to extrapolate their intelligence based on such.

The presence of dumbness does not always constitute stupidity. Einstein was so entrenched in his thought that he sometimes forgot where he lived; he would say to his taxi driver "take me to Einstein's house." At one point when he left on time for his teaching job at Princeton, he would wander off to random places contemplating the mechanics of our universe.

Geez man, he was guilty of forgetting where he lived, and forgetting where Princeton was located, yet he was one of the most preeminent physicists of his generation, and perhaps in human history! That right there proves that stupidity or intelligence isn't defined by what one believes.

So why this thread? It must only be because you yourself have some sort of animus against conservatives, and that you yourself think they are stupid.

 

[occupied]

Exactly, I had a very academic childhood where I consumed hundreds of books but it was not nearly as educational as watching tobacco spitting hillbillies keep their cars running, their houses warm and putting food on the table and later having to do it all myself. That being said, my education has made it possible to hire hillbillies to work on my stuff so I no longer have to do it myself, even though I could.

Which really leads to the truly important fact that our society tends to place too high a focus on IQ as a measure of human worth. As a person with an extremely high IQ I struggled with this quite a bit for a very long time, all the way back to my early childhood. By obsessing over IQ the way we sometimes do, we really do a disservice to everyone.

I think it's the other way around, society does not value it's smartest people enough. Just look at TV, Bill Nye has to act like a silly clown just to get people to absorb some knowledge while people take the dolts on "reality" TV far too seriously. Intellectuals are too often lonely misfits who get passed over for jobs, promotions and mates because they are not as social.

 

[SwimExpert]

IQ tests are basically a test to see how well you assimilate into the culture that created the test.

No, this is not true. This is, in fact, a horrible misunderstanding of how IQ tests work. In order to be a valid test, a test has to be normed in order to generate composite scores. The norming process requires that it be done within the country or cultural region in which test takers will originate. The reason for this requirement is that test questions themselves are proxies by which to gauge cognitive ability, and cultural differences can affect how a test taker will interpret questions. Thus a question such as "*** is to stick as school is to . [fish] ." can be interpreted very differently due to cultural differences. Your suggestion that an IQ test measures assimilation into a culture is in fact opposite of what happens; the process of creating a valid IQ test specifically screens out cultural influence from affecting the results of the test.

There is also proof that there is no one test that can accurately measure "intelligence".

Erm, it is widely understood that intelligence is a complex thing that we cannot easily describe, nor can we measure it in the way we would precisely measure a volume of water, down to the 1/10 of a milliliter. There are multiple theories on what constitutes intelligence, and none of them are perfect. IQ tests are not meant to measure intelligence in such a way. But they do give us a reliable means to measure comparative cognitive abilities among people. If Tom scores a 101 on his IQ test, while Sally scores a 102, no clinician worth his salt would use that to say that Sally must be more intelligent than Tom. He would say that they both possess average intelligence, and score slightly above the median. More important than the single composite score, the test giver would be able to talk about particular areas of strengths and weaknesses each demonstrates. Meanwhile, if Jerry scores a 135, the test taker would be able to confidently say that Jerry is gifted and significantly above average.

Thats why I said I dont believe in them in my first post. I agree there are some brilliant people that are "uneducated" and or self taught. If you take intelligence as the ability to use known information to solve problems then you can see that IQ tests are a scam.

While we're at it, let's define intelligence as the ability to rub to sticks together and make a fire. IQ tests typically make heavy use of abstraction so that knowledge won't muddy the waters. There is a reason why tests like the SATs and the ASVAB are rejected as measures of IQ. The SATs measure knowledge, and that is all they are meant to measure. The ASVAB does a better job of measuring cognitive ability, but is still very knowledge heavy and really boils down to an aptitude test.

 

[nat4900]

No, it means you're a liar.

Look SJ give it a rest...You can't prove what someone states here about him/herself either way....So, instead why don't you go play with your guns, or go light a cross on somebody's lawn?

 

[TemplarKormac]

This study is so wrought with bias and suggestions that it makes a mockery out of the psychological profession!

 

[francoHFW]

OP- A fact. Intelligence is often defined as ability to adapt. QED

 

[nat4900]

This study is so wrought with bias and suggestions that it makes a mockery out of the psychological profession!

Of course, maybe the study is just about Canadian racist-conservatives....
Does that ease your pain a bit?

 

[Asclepias]

IQ tests are basically a test to see how well you assimilate into the culture that created the test.

No, this is not true. This is, in fact, a horrible misunderstanding of how IQ tests work. In order to be a valid test, a test has to be normed in order to generate composite scores. The norming process requires that it be done within the country or cultural region in which test takers will originate. The reason for this requirement is that test questions themselves are proxies by which to gauge cognitive ability, and cultural differences can affect how a test taker will interpret questions. Thus a question such as "*** is to stick as school is to . [fish] ." can be interpreted very differently due to cultural differences. Your suggestion that an IQ test measures assimilation into a culture is in fact opposite of what happens; the process of creating a valid IQ test specifically screens out cultural influence from affecting the results of the test.

There is also proof that there is no one test that can accurately measure "intelligence".

Erm, it is widely understood that intelligence is a complex thing that we cannot easily describe, nor can we measure it in the way we would precisely measure a volume of water, down to the 1/10 of a milliliter. There are multiple theories on what constitutes intelligence, and none of them are perfect. IQ tests are not meant to measure intelligence in such a way. But they do give us a reliable means to measure comparative cognitive abilities among people. If Tom scores a 101 on his IQ test, while Sally scores a 102, no clinician worth his salt would use that to say that Sally must be more intelligent than Tom. He would say that they both possess average intelligence, and score slightly above the median. More important than the single composite score, the test giver would be able to talk about particular areas of strengths and weaknesses each demonstrates. Meanwhile, if Jerry scores a 135, the test taker would be able to confidently say that Jerry is gifted and significantly above average.

Thats why I said I dont believe in them in my first post. I agree there are some brilliant people that are "uneducated" and or self taught. If you take intelligence as the ability to use known information to solve problems then you can see that IQ tests are a scam.

While we're at it, let's define intelligence as the ability to rub to sticks together and make a fire. IQ tests typically make heavy use of abstraction so that knowledge won't muddy the waters. There is a reason why tests like the SATs and the ASVAB are rejected as measures of IQ. The SATs measure knowledge, and that is all they are meant to measure. The ASVAB does a better job of measuring cognitive ability, but is still very knowledge heavy and really boils down to an aptitude test.

Disagree. White people came up with the concept of IQ tests specifically to try and pretend they were smarter than everyone else. See eugenics. That same basic concept (cultural thinking) has been dispersed to the world. While it may be the language of a culture it still has that underlying premise of superiority inherent in its making. Therefore those that feel themselves "worthy" of constructing the tests follow that same paradigm.

The problem with cognition is this one thing. Who decided they were the ones that could or should say what cognition consists of? Your cognition may be vastly inferior to someone else but since it fits the accepted definition then you are assumed to be more intelligent?.

 

[Asclepias]

OP- A fact. Intelligence is often defined as ability to adapt. QED

Using that definition then the findings are true.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This is the only reason Faux News still exists.

It is easy to fool 25% of almost any population, and fool them all the time.

That would be interesting if Fox could get 25%.

As I understand it, the country has a population of over 300,000,000.

Fox shows, when kicking MSNBC's butt is pulling in 3,000,000 or a little more.

That would be 1% of the total population.

If you assume that half the population is below 18, then say it is 2% of the adult population.

I guess figures don't relate to I.Q.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course, maybe the study is just about Canadian racist-conservatives....

That bit of snark made me grin. You know what is incredibly stupid, nat? You using a broad brush, and that study sir, is the brush you're holding now.

 

[francoHFW]

This is the only reason Faux News still exists.

It is easy to fool 25% of almost any population, and fool them all the time.

That would be interesting if Fox could get 25%.

As I understand it, the country has a population of over 300,000,000.

Fox shows, when kicking MSNBC's butt is pulling in 3,000,000 or a little more.

That would be 1% of the total population.

If you assume that half the population is below 18, then say it is 2% of the adult population.

I guess figures don't relate to I.Q.

The whole Pub propaganda Machine, Rush, Cruz, etc etc and the dullards circle jerking and telling N****R jokes across the USA gets the total of 25% hater dupes...the less you know, the better the chance...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This is the only reason Faux News still exists.

It is easy to fool 25% of almost any population, and fool them all the time.

That would be interesting if Fox could get 25%.

As I understand it, the country has a population of over 300,000,000.

Fox shows, when kicking MSNBC's butt is pulling in 3,000,000 or a little more.

That would be 1% of the total population.

If you assume that half the population is below 18, then say it is 2% of the adult population.

I guess figures don't relate to I.Q.

The whole Pub propaganda Machine, Rush, Cruz, etc etc and the dullards circle jerking and telling N****R jokes across the USA gets the total of 25% hater dupes...the less you know, the better the chance...

Please provide those numbers.

I find it hard to believe you could even come close.

Rush Limbaugh s Audience May be So Much Smaller Than You Think - Business Insider

This article says Rush has 15 - 20 million (or claims that...) and it wonders if it not much less than that.

 

[S.J.]

Because liberals are just so intelligent.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've noticed this aswell, many on the ultra right lack a basic understanding of anything they're against.

I've noticed that about every six to eight months this same stuff gets posted.

I am not a conservative.

But I have to ask just how is it that democrats are so want to call the GOP stupid when the GOP has essentially kicked their asses in two of the last three elections and holds 60+ percent of state houses.

If the conservatives are stupid.

What does that make the democrats or liberals ?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I like how you call yourself smart but like reading in between the lines.

You know, this is when you actually confirm that you're floundering......I NEVER stated that I was smart....the lack of dumbness does not necessarily make one smart. What the study actually addresses, is the moronic belief in prejudices and racism and conserving those ideologies that make those two unsavory traits possible.

Look at all that spin! No really, you have only succeeded in labeling conservatives as racist and overly prejudiced.

 

[SwimExpert]

I think it's the other way around, society does not value it's smartest people enough. Just look at TV, Bill Nye has to act like a silly clown just to get people to absorb some knowledge while people take the dolts on "reality" TV far too seriously. Intellectuals are too often lonely misfits who get passed over for jobs, promotions and mates because they are not as social.

I tend to agree that society doesn't adequately value our brightest and most gifted people, but I find that to be due to over emphasis on measuring a person's total human worth based on their IQ. What I found through most of my life was that because I was deemed exceptionally gifted, I was expected to live up to people's ideals and their own preconceived notions of what a gifted person should be. I was in 2nd grade and was able to absorb 6th grade level, so all of a sudden everyone had images of Doogie Howser going through their minds. When I wasn't interested, nor capable, of living up to their own unrealistic expectations, people were baffled and would soon write me off and chastised me for not living up to their expectations, or their hopes to live vicariously through what they wanted me to be. They decided I was less valuable to them than the average bear, precisely because in their minds I chose to not live up to their ridiculous notions of what a gifted child's value should be. It's an insane paradox.

Meanwhile, I couldn't spell worth shit, and people around me couldn't comprehend the fact that a child who ought to be a case study in giftedness was constantly flunking an "easy" subject like spelling. The only conclusion they could figure out was that I was simply lazy. So their appraisal of my human value sunk even further. Then, when I didn't get along with classmates I became bad. The standard line was "You're smarter than everyone else, you should be able to find a way to get along with them." In their minds, my intelligence should have been the answer to everything. When it turned out to not be the answer, it was because something was wrong with me. The result was that I was seen as a less worth while human being. I've learned that people don't measure you based on who or what you are. They measure based on what they expect of you. They rarely bother to stop and check whether their expectations are reasonable or valid.

Just look at the way that intelligent people are criticized by society. The chief complaint isn't that they're intelligent. It's that despite being intelligent they haven't done enough or solved enough problems. What do you hear people say about doctors? "Well, if the doctors are so smart why can't they cure the common cold?" When the subject turns to biology and cosmology it's "They think they're so smart with their evolution and big bang theory, but they still can't tell us where all the stuff came from before all that happened, so I don't believe anything they say, I believe what the bible tells me." So on and so forth....

On a side note, research has shown that high intelligence can have a negative social impact. The idea that the "best and brightest" achieve the highest success has been shown to be patently false. While it's true that individuals who reach the highest levels of professional and social success tend to be above average intelligence, there's also a maximum threshold. IIRC, the 115 to 130 range tends to be the sweet spot. As a person's IQ goes higher, their chances of professional and social success diminish, notably below that of the average intelligence individual. This is belief is that being "above average" tends to give people the ability to wield the advantages of being more intelligent, while still being close enough that they can relate well enough that they can be effective leaders, which translates into upward mobility professionally and socially. Meanwhile, the higher end of the spectrum begins having difficulty relating to the "average Joe" and can become impatient when feeling like they are being held back by other people's shortcomings. And they can especially grow frustrated when dealing with superiors who are substantially less intelligent who end up forcing them to operate against their own better knowing. That then leads to the "well if you're so smart" complex which results in the gifted individual being viewed unfavorably.