New study links racism, prejudice and conservatism to low IQ

Makes sense to me....

A new study from Brock University suggests that a low IQ (or intelligence quotient) may be one of the root causes of racist or prejudiced views, as well as socially conservative politics. The study says that people who intensely fear change often embrace reactionary positions.
Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.
The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.
I.Q., or intelligence quotient, is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologists.
Read more:
http://www.thegrio.com/news/new-study-links-racism-prejudice-and-conservatism-to-low-iq.php

 

I hesitate to accept as credible any research that implies causation without a heck of a lot more supporting research. I'd also like to see their methodology and how generalizable their sample might be. But seriously, HuffPo? Is that even a real news source?

 

Certainly not if our group here on this forum is any indicator.

 

I have tested as having a IQ of 143. I'm conservative, but not prejudiced/racist. Judging by his publications, I'd say that Dr. Hodson is looking to prove that there is a dark side to people he doesn't like. It would be like me starting research from the assumption that all animal rights activists are mentally ill and choosing methodology to prove it.

http://www.brocku.ca/psychology/people/hodson.htm

 

OK I had to make fun of that.

 

Of which? I'm very confused.

 

It was just phrased funny from my perspective. No insult intended

 

But Huffington didn't do the research. They merely reported it. Don't confuse the two.

 

No, I know the difference--but the research is still in publication right now (according to Hodson's CV) and it's not even accessible to many/most American institutions, given that it's a Sage publication. That's why it's irresponsible of HuffPo to announce what they believe the research has found and twist it to fit their agenda. And, as I said, it seems as if Dr. Hodson is not the most unbiased of researchers. If I can lay my hands on a copy of the paper to develop an informed opinion, I will, but it's not worth $35 to me to buy a copy of the paper from Sage.

 

New study links racism, prejudice and conservatism to low IQ

Social conservatism...

 

Congratulations Peter. On that one I absolutely agree!!!!!

 

Thanks for providing one of the best definitions of irony to date.

 

What I have realized about the RW'ers is that they are one of two things when it comes to racism. Either they play to it by alluding to race with very subtle references that they can plausibly deny or they are absolutely clueless about their own inability to see how they are being racist in the first place. For example, Newty said that he couldn't see why using black people as examples of welfare recipients might offend some people. Here is an example of someone that both knows what he is saying and is pretending that he doesn't see the racism in his own words (which he does but knows his audience hasn't got a clue). Of course using blacks as an example of welfare recipients is racist because 70% of welfare recipients are white. Anyone with half a brain can see the racism in his example if they decide to actually look. And not looking is what the RW'ers do best. They pretend not to see racism so they don't have to see themselves as they really are. It's a hard case to make when the language is kept subtle but I think we are seeing more and more overt racism and subtlety may be a thing of the past. And guess who they'll blame for driving them to such a racial division that they were well on their way to achieving on their own?

 

I saw this study too, a couple of days ago I think it was on Yahoo, but I've not commented on it yet. It's just too easy.

 

Yes, but those of us with whole brains know what he was really saying.

 

The fact is that welfare, in the traditional sense, doesn't exist in the United States. That lunaliberal Bill Clinton ended that a long time ago. All public assistance now is for children. Of course it's hard for the R People (Right, Republican, Rich, Religious, Racist, Repressive, Regressive) to come up with something new to whine about.

 

Well first we need to get a real conservative on the forum. I sure don't see any although some are kind of close IMHO.

Those that claim to be conservative fall well short.

 

So we do not fit YOUR definition of conservatives. Yet somehow we are all in lock step according to your com-padre. Anyone see something that does not quite jive here?

 

That's not entirely true. Have you been to the grocery lately? I was in line behind a couple the other day who paid for their stuff in 3 seperate transactions. Some items were paid for using a card, some with a voucher & the beer and cigarettes by cash. They weren't shy explaining to the clerk that the card had "state money" on it & the "hardship voucher" came from the local township.
On a side note, did you all know a carton of cigs is like $50 these days?