http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/ (http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/)
The headline is hyperbolic and the articles shows a bit of bias, but the studies' conclusions are evident to anyone who has spent time on FaceBook. I like this part:
QuoteLiberals’ brains are biologically more able to handle complex thought, and conservatives base their beliefs on fear.
A recent FB discussion with some of my family members showed this quite clearly. They were going on about how we should stomp out ISIS. I asked them how they would do that, how we could avoid unintended consequences, and why they thought military intervention could work when history has shown us that meddling in foreign countries has almost always turned out poorly. They ignored my questions and replied with statements along the lines of we just need to wipe them out, our borders are porous and terrorists are getting into our country illegally, invading Iraq didn't turn out well because we were't fully committed, and other equally vapid ideas.
In another FB discussion a couple of weeks ago one of my cousins posted praise for Utah reinstating firing squads. When I asked by which philosophical theory people justify the death penalty I was met with hostility and Bible quotes. The rhetoric turned incendiary when I replied that Bronze age mythology is not a philosophical theory. I think I pushed a button.
Perhaps it is because I am liberal and have mastered "complex thought" that I can recognize this article is complete crap. I'm all for a good rant or good social science but "Conservatives are dumb… it’s a scientific fact" is just silly.
I am puzzled why so many Christians support the death penalty. Q: "What Would Jesus Do?" A: Shoot him in the head... it just doesn't seem very Christ-like to me.
Well, these are peer-reviewed studies. As I stated, the headline is hyperbolic and the article slanted, but the studies seem to make some good points, especially the last one which looked the the differences in brain structure. I wish I still had access to the original research so I could look at their methodology.
I would say that people who are conservative are by and large mentally lazy, whether or not that is caused by lack of intelligence. Critical thinking in terms of studying every aspect of an issue instead of buying into an idea based on bias. Having been a member of a highly conservative religion, I know that the encouragement is to rote thinking based on what is taught; the proverbial inside the box thinking. It is simply easier to follow that line of reasoning in a community full of fellow believers than to examine those beliefs critically.
I agree. I have met a lot of very smart conservatives. They are very good at rationalizing their ideologies. George Will (whom I have not met) is a prime example.
George Will is a very good example. I grew up with and later worked with Mormons, some of them very smart. My brother Mark was one very smart man, and a High Priest in the LDS church when he died. I also worked with Mormon and Christian scientists and engineers as a technical editor in the Air Force. Smart people. But in the process of our work, religion simply didn't come up. The ability to compartmentalize and separate one from the other is all part of the thinking process.
Quote from: stromboli on March 10, 2015, 01:58:35 PMI would say that people who are conservative are by and large mentally lazy, whether or not that is caused by lack of intelligence.
I don't recall the source, but I remember reading that conservatives are generally more intolerant of ambiguity, which leads them to exhibit black-and-white thinking and to prefer simplistic solutions to problems.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 10, 2015, 02:14:48 PM
I don't recall the source, but I remember reading that conservatives are generally more intolerant of ambiguity, which leads them to exhibit black-and-white thinking and to prefer simplistic solutions to problems.
I would definitely agree with that.
Actually, I've seen articles on at least two other studies, which reinforce this one. They simply don't paint flattering pictures of conservatives generally.
Quote from: Light Craftsman on March 10, 2015, 01:41:13 PM
Well, these are peer-reviewed studies. As I stated, the headline is hyperbolic and the article slanted, but the studies seem to make some good points, especially the last one which looked the the differences in brain structure. I wish I still had access to the original research so I could look at their methodology.
The article is crap, I don't have enough information to judge the individual studies. A fascinating book about the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives is
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. Here is a TED Talk he gave about some of the ideas he covers in his book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 10, 2015, 02:14:48 PM
I don't recall the source, but I remember reading that conservatives are generally more intolerant of ambiguity, which leads them to exhibit black-and-white thinking and to prefer simplistic solutions to problems.
So, zero shades of grey?
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 10, 2015, 02:14:48 PM
I don't recall the source, but I remember reading that conservatives are generally more intolerant of ambiguity, which leads them to exhibit black-and-white thinking and to prefer simplistic solutions to problems.
Nor can they tell the difference between a scholarly treatise and a bumper sticker.
Quote from: Light Craftsman on March 10, 2015, 01:41:13 PM
Well, these are peer-reviewed studies.
Being published and reviewed holds little meaning if you don't know what the reviewers had to say.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 11, 2015, 09:50:19 AM
Being published and reviewed holds little meaning if you don't know what the reviewers had to say.
Then no peer-reviewed study is meaningful, is it? I have not seen
any publication include the reviewer's comments when publishing research findings. The meaning comes from reading the published study and determining the quality of the research and findings.
GSOgymrat said:
QuoteThe article is crap, I don't have enough information to judge the individual studies.
That is the type of shallow thinking I see conservatives exhibit daily. The article, as I said in the OP, is biased. Those of us who studied David Hume base our opinions on research not journalism. Quit obsessing over the article and take the time to click the links it contains. The research is illuminating.
Quote from: Light Craftsman on March 10, 2015, 12:35:33 PM
http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/ (http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/)
The headline is hyperbolic and the articles shows a bit of bias, but the studies' conclusions are evident to anyone who has spent time on FaceBook. I like this part:
A recent FB discussion with some of my family members showed this quite clearly. They were going on about how we should stomp out ISIS. I asked them how they would do that, how we could avoid unintended consequences, and why they thought military intervention could work when history has shown us that meddling in foreign countries has almost always turned out poorly. They ignored my questions and replied with statements along the lines of we just need to wipe them out, our borders are porous and terrorists are getting into our country illegally, invading Iraq didn't turn out well because we were't fully committed, and other equally vapid ideas.
In another FB discussion a couple of weeks ago one of my cousins posted praise for Utah reinstating firing squads. When I asked by which philosophical theory people justify the death penalty I was met with hostility and Bible quotes. The rhetoric turned incendiary when I replied that Bronze age mythology is not a philosophical theory. I think I pushed a button.
no shit sherlock
This studdy is bullsheeit. I is a conservitive but I is SMRT! I is a deep thinkur! Cus I bleive in JUSUS! Bibble sez it, I bleive it, that settlse it. Guns! Amurrika!
Quote from: Light Craftsman on March 11, 2015, 11:30:47 AM
Then no peer-reviewed study is meaningful, is it?
False.
QuoteI have not seen any publication include the reviewer's comments when publishing research findings.
Then you haven't looked very hard. For example the advanced search function at PubMed includes a review filter. Another example is
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union (http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/index.html).
QuoteThe meaning comes from reading the published study and determining the quality of the research and findings.
This is true but unfortunately most people including scientists aren't equipped to make that kind of a determination in areas outside their field of expertise on a reliable basis. Most journals have a pre-publication process of some type, but that process is usually very limited in scope. Because of those limitations flawed research gets published on a regular basis. Much of the time flaws aren't discovered until after publication. It took twelve years for the Wakefield paper linking vaccines to autism to be withdrawn by the publisher. This despite serious criticisms that began almost immediately after publication. The damn thing is still being cited today by people that don't know the paper was debunked.
In any case my point was not that peer reviewed publications are useless. Rather that any time a publication reaches a controversial conclusion it is best to see what other experts have to say about it before accepting the findings as fact.
You make some good points, but skipped this at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics:
QuoteThe process of peer review and publication in the interactive scientific journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) differs from traditional scientific journals. It is a two-stage process involving the scientific discussion forum Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (ACPD), and it has been designed to utilize the full potential of the Internet to foster scientific discussion and enable rapid publication of scientific papers.
Initial access peer review assures the basic scientific and technical quality of papers published in ACPD. Subsequent interactive discussion and public commenting by the referees, authors, and other members of the scientific community is expected to enhance quality control for papers published in ACP beyond the limits of the traditional closed peer review.
Emphasis added.
I agree about most people not being able to vet subjects outside their area of expertise, and that why follow-up studies are important.No one study or experiment proves anything. If these are the only studies showing conservatives are, on average, less educate and less inclined to think dee-ly about complex subjects they would be mildly interesting at best, but as others have noted the studies linked in the article agree with other studies. I have also seen many real-world examples of the shallow thinking pervasive in conservative circles.
We all have biases. Many of us work to overcome our biases and try to remain open-minded about our beliefs. Looking back on it I should not have used the flawed article as the basis for my post; I should have gone straight to the studies and posted my own reflections. I have to admit to laziness on that. I apologize and will strive to do better in the future.
:wtff: They actually had to do a study to find this out? What's that say about the people that did the study? Look at Sarah Palin, for example, excellent memory and probably got straight A's in school, and to talk without a script that is even close to being coherent. I take that back, she doesn't even have a good memory either. Solitary
Quote from: Light Craftsman on March 11, 2015, 04:36:39 PM
We all have biases. Many of us work to overcome our biases and try to remain open-minded about our beliefs. Looking back on it I should not have used the flawed article as the basis for my post; I should have gone straight to the studies and posted my own reflections. I have to admit to laziness on that. I apologize and will strive to do better in the future.
I admit to laziness in not initially viewing the links in the article but the author of the article was so self-satisfied that I couldn't take him seriously. The topic itself is interesting and I think the following is a pretty good article discussing the research: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/