Be Excellent To Each Other

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acist.html

Yes, it's a Daily Mail link -- but the research it's reporting on is proper stuff and the writeup is actually pretty good for once.

Basically, some Candian researchers collated childhood intelligence testing done in Britain in the 50s and 70s where children were examined for intelligence and then asked in adulthood about political views. They found significant correlation between lower childhood intelligence and conservative viewpoints such as "I believe in stiffer punishments for criminals", "I believe schools should teach more discipline" and "I would prefer not to live next to a mixed-race family". The researchers go on to speculate that conservative values make some people of lower intelligence feel safer.

Fascinating stuff -- the survey has more than 15,000 people involved in total, which suggests the correlation the researchers found is likely to be genuine, whatever you make of their specific conclusions.

"Americans are thick" say Canadian academics

Interesting, shall read. Amusing that it's in the Mail too

Wow, someone at the Daily Mail went right off-message in running that story. It's like they're trolling their own readership.

I think all rugby players are thick.

One could make the case that every Mail story is a blatant attempt to troll either their own readership or the Guardian's...

When I first saw the story I was puzzled as to why DM wanted to troll their own readership. I suppose it will get them attacking the left wing lot for being wrong then...

The DM website publishes anything whatsoever that will bring in traffic.

Bikini pics, apparently.

To be fair, 'Thick people are more likely to be right wing' rather than 'right wing=thick'. Still, explains Littlejohn.

It's actually an incredible business model. Whereas the paper works to build a fierce base of idealogically consistent loyal readers, the website deliberately sets out to court controversy. Their only aim is exactly what Doc's done above - get people sharing links and driving others to the website. It's the most read news site in the world.

We should do it.

We've all got bikini's, right?

Just because I'm left wing as they come, it doesn't mean that I'm going to start believing anything that comes out of the daily mails web mouth.

Anyone got a link to the actual research paper?

The Daily Mail ain't the only ones capable of using a linkbait headline to drag the punters in.

I think I said it elswhere, but the Mail Online trolls the internet as a whole and its regular commenters on the stories, and the commenters on the stories are trolling both the site and each other and the crucial thing is that everyone involved is thinking that everyone else but them is completely serious.

The authors are only named as 'academics' and their university is only mentioned in the tenth paragraph.

This is terrible, terrible journalism.

Right wing people are think mind.

The only way to win is not to play.

Yep. It's actually quite magnificent.

Deep.

Hang on, what the hell has being xenophobic, or racist, got to do with having conservative-leaning political beliefs? Actually, I have to say that I find such a supposed automatic association, by default, as being downright offensive (as well as small-minded, ironically).



How patronising is that? The inference here, of course, is that "conservative values" have no basis for actually increasing the safety of a given population, by definition and as a supposedly demonstrable and absolute indisputable given, and furthermore this being something that only the more intelligent (presumably left-leaning) among us could ever hope to appreciate.



Please tell me you don't believe that? You of all people should know that statistics, especially if combined with a skewed study and coloured pre-judgement (not to mention a desire to sensationalize something), can be made to show pretty much anything. Plus, it's a leader story in the Daily Mail, whose lack of credibility cuts both ways.

From a business POV and as others have alluded to, this actually makes fine business sense, in terms of getting their indignant demographic/readers to click onto this story and their website. It's nothing more than DM Journalists playing on the prejudices of their (admittedly) thick tabloid readership (i.e. pretty much as they do with most of their other stories too, in case you hadn't noticed), but one that's certainly no more stupid than for other tabloid rags, including the Daily Mirror.

Sure there's an amusing side to this and I can laugh along with it just like everyone else, but I really can't believe you've swallowed this "proper stuff" hook, line and sinker and actually taken this seriously, Doc. I thought you more discerning than that.

I assume you mean "thick"?
That's just a ridiculous statement, from a demonstrably intelligent man.

I was going to say something about this, but you beat me to it! Reactionary != Conservative.

I was thinking about this just this very night wrt to the 26000, and I think the report is making a failing to make a distinction between "right wing", "conservative", and "self serving". It is very possible to be liberal and selfish (I would describe myself as such). Edit, or conversely conservative and not a racist.

Thanks Squirt mate.

Today must be Bad Science and Trolling Day, I do believe. Think I'll pass, then.

Conservative viewpoints (which is what Doc posted) and conservative-leaning political beliefs aren't the same thing. Conservative in the context of the sentence in the OP means "resistant to change, unwilling to embrace new ideas". And xenophobia is definitely a symptom of that.

That doesn't go to say that "Those who are conservative of thought are racist", but rather "Those who are conservative of thought don't like change, and multiculturalism represents change".

Every 'conservative' in that post was a little-c conservative, not a big-C.

Craster, you can say 'cunt' you know.

Sorry, but no. The implication was abundantly clear to me (the thread title for a bloody start; "right wingers" = conservative in a political context, etc.), and to others also, it would appear - not that this is the only issue of course, far from it.

I could start quoting/disassembling bits of the original post and all the rest but I really can't be arsed with this puerile, childish nonsense any further, as stated, any more than the "swear black is white kleek [sic] firewall" syndrome here, in these types of bang-to-rights situations. Sorry. Apart from being a waste of time and energy, it's also insulting to my own intelligence, ironically enough.

I'd be happy to say something like "Political , moral or economic absolutism make some people of lower intelligence feel safer", or something like that, and it seems to me that, in the US, the Republicans are certainly pushing that sort of message more than the Democrats.

Then you should do it. Life is nothing if we deny ourselves the simple pleasures.

So, so true.

* Sits back, slips on slippers, lights cigar, sips brandy, makes statement on Political Absolutism and sighs with contentment *

It was meant to be ridiculous and undermine my previous very balanced unjudgemnetal statement and thus create humour. It failed.

And on top of that I can't type on my iPad.

When I'm not on my iPad I'll dig out an excellent ted talk about how different ersonalities lead to different political opinions. It's brill.

Ah, fair enough, my apologies Dr. Lave.
I should've realised you were not being serious here, especially in the light of your previously pouring scorn on the veracity of this so-called study, in an earlier post. I guess I was a bit pissed off in general by this thread, at this stage.

I'd be interested in seeing that TED Talk - I think I need a good laugh after the week I've had.

To be fair, right wingers are often thick.

Just look at David Beckham.

Bins! For fucks sake. Anyway, I like to think that every political party has its loonies and nitwits.Usually the MPs.

Fair point I guess Pundy, but do you have a municipal composting facility where you live?

*narrows eyes* don't push me, Tory-boy.

Heh. Don't tempt me either, you dumbass Yank[1].





[1] Yes, I know you're not American. However, this amuses me, still. Plus, you're a Civil Servant working in the DWP, which is infinitely worse.

I'm far more interested in the sample they got. 15,000 people isn't that big (my company had around 200,000 completed interviews today alone (although people tend to do around 2.5 surveys a day, so that's not 200,000 people), which is only a little higher than usual (always is on a Friday)). But finding 15,000 people twenty years later? That would be so difficult it makes my elbows sting.

And of all the things they could have asked them - boring old politics! I'd be far more interested to see if their level of intelligence had changed, or, indeed, if they had survived.

Not having read any of the articles involved, I'd postulate that poor people are more likely to respond to such a survey and also more likely to show more conservative opinions in response to questions as that is how many countries in economic turmoil end up with such governments.

Also, sociology isn't a real science.

Poorer people = less educated = more self centered in their world view.

Does that give a causal relationship between intelligence and conservatism? I'm not so sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if that theory held true. However without seeing the full report and knowing the details, I would argue that there was possibly a huge amount of question bias, and how significant or correct is an intelligence test going to be at 10 years old, regardless of the specific type of intelligence they were testing for, which wasn't mentioned, and regardless of the fact that intelligence tests are pretty much hokum anyway.

yes, because rich people are, on the whole, very egalitarian.

I'm still fecked off about them tAking my child benefit off me this year, and I'm a left winger whose happy to pay more taxes, so really, you're not that correct.

I'm not sure of your point.

That the poorer you are (in a first world society), the more likely you are to have a self-centred attitude.
This doesn't mean that rich people are all egalitarian, but it is easy to care more about others when you don't have to care as much about yourself, was my point.

also, you seem to be confusing The Conservative party, with the word conservative.

No. I agree with your first paragraph, but your second doesn't follow at all. But that's easy to say when you own the means of production of cupcakes.

I VANT YOUR CUPCAKES!!

That depends on a lot of things. I can get you a breakdown of how likely certain "types" of people in the UK are to respond, if you like.

I would argue the complete opposite.

I would argue neither.

I would argue both. That's everything covered, right? Lock the thread!

Hang on - we haven't had Goodwin's Law yet.

Godwin's law is worse than Hitler.