Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers says DM
Discussion
ty rag ?
I think this study is spot on 
It certainly seems to explain the views on this forum
Actually I thought that it was not a case of the right being less intelligent, but that people who have low intelligence and happen to be right wing are more likely to be racist/homophobic etc.
This makes perfect sense as right wing tends to be less tollerant of change etc. I imagine alsmost everyone who is a member of organisations like the BNP etc would fall into the low intelligence/rightwing catagory.
At the other end of the spectrum sociallists and liberals tend to be a lot more tollerant.
It certainly seems to explain the views on this forum
Actually I thought that it was not a case of the right being less intelligent, but that people who have low intelligence and happen to be right wing are more likely to be racist/homophobic etc.
This makes perfect sense as right wing tends to be less tollerant of change etc. I imagine alsmost everyone who is a member of organisations like the BNP etc would fall into the low intelligence/rightwing catagory.
At the other end of the spectrum sociallists and liberals tend to be a lot more tollerant.
Devil2575 said:
I think this study is spot on
It certainly seems to explain the views on this forum
Actually I thought that it was not a case of the right being less intelligent, but that people who have low intelligence and happen to be right wing are more likely to be racist/homophobic etc.
This makes perfect sense as right wing tends to be less tollerant of change etc. I imagine alsmost everyone who is a member of organisations like the BNP etc would fall into the low intelligence/rightwimg catagory.
At the other end of the spectrum sociallists and liberals tend to be a lot more tollerant.
I see just as much hate come from UAF/left wing types, just directed at different groups. They rather toe the current consensus rather than react against it like the "far right". There is no doubt in my mind that if this was 1930s Germany the UAF lot would be the first to sign up to the SS as just like they now fall for the multicultural propaganda, they would have fallen for anti-semitic propaganda back then.It certainly seems to explain the views on this forum
Actually I thought that it was not a case of the right being less intelligent, but that people who have low intelligence and happen to be right wing are more likely to be racist/homophobic etc.
This makes perfect sense as right wing tends to be less tollerant of change etc. I imagine alsmost everyone who is a member of organisations like the BNP etc would fall into the low intelligence/rightwimg catagory.
At the other end of the spectrum sociallists and liberals tend to be a lot more tollerant.
I find the truth is somewhere in the middle. Multiculturalism isnt all bad, but its not all good either. The centre right (not the far right) have a healthy skepticism of all govt I find. I simply dont believe psychologically human beings are that different. Its just manifested in slightly different ways politically.
The problem with this survey is that it makes the old mistake of clumping together social and economic policies assuming one automatically goes with the other.
'right' and 'left' (derived from the sides of the building the various opposing factions of the first post-revolutionary French Parliaments used to sit) nowadays refers to economic policy only. On the right, you have a laissez-faire approach to capitalism, low regulation, and economic growth as the number one priority. On the left, there's a belief in controlled capitalism (or in extremis, communism), high levels of regulation pertaining to wealth distribution, and the even spread of wealth as the number one priority.
This split is not to be confused with the social policy axis, that of authoritarianism and libertarianism. This applies the tolerance/control approach to society rather than the economy, and informs such policies as immigration, policing policy, race relations etc.
You can have a government that is economically right-wing but socially libertarian (a lot of Northern mainland Europe, for example), in the same way that you can have a government that is economically left-wing but socially authoritarian (Communist Russia, all manner of old Eastern Bloc countries, Cuba etc). Hitler, that lazy conversationalist's way of killing any given conversation when used as a byword for 'right-wing', was in fact all over the place - heavily-controlled economy, heavily-controlled society. Nationalist Socialism - almost as economically left-wing as communism.
I think it would be better had the Mail thought more carefully about the point they were trying to make. It goes without saying that if the population was more intelligent, they'd need fewer social controls in place to stop them basically cocking society up and making a mess of themselves and each other. Therefore you could say that the 'less intelligent' people 'feel safe' in an authoritarian country because they don't need to work out a sense of wrong and right for themselves. More intelligent people favour more liberal social policies because they are left to their own devices to conduct their lives on a kind of unwritten contract with the state that they won't take liberties with this freedom.
When you think about it that way it's self-explanatory. What it's got to do with the economy is anyone's guess. I suppose you could say that a more intelligent person would recognise their place and role in society and would favour an economic policy that prized a balance between fairness and meritocracy. Thing is, that's a centrist economic view. There are proven flaws in extremes of both versions of capitalism, manifested in the collapse of communism following its failure to look after its people, and the ruinous boom-and-bust cycles of monetarism that promotes short-termism, selfishness and the avoidance of responsibility amongst both those perennially out of work and those routinely making off with taxpayer's money.
'right' and 'left' (derived from the sides of the building the various opposing factions of the first post-revolutionary French Parliaments used to sit) nowadays refers to economic policy only. On the right, you have a laissez-faire approach to capitalism, low regulation, and economic growth as the number one priority. On the left, there's a belief in controlled capitalism (or in extremis, communism), high levels of regulation pertaining to wealth distribution, and the even spread of wealth as the number one priority.
This split is not to be confused with the social policy axis, that of authoritarianism and libertarianism. This applies the tolerance/control approach to society rather than the economy, and informs such policies as immigration, policing policy, race relations etc.
You can have a government that is economically right-wing but socially libertarian (a lot of Northern mainland Europe, for example), in the same way that you can have a government that is economically left-wing but socially authoritarian (Communist Russia, all manner of old Eastern Bloc countries, Cuba etc). Hitler, that lazy conversationalist's way of killing any given conversation when used as a byword for 'right-wing', was in fact all over the place - heavily-controlled economy, heavily-controlled society. Nationalist Socialism - almost as economically left-wing as communism.
I think it would be better had the Mail thought more carefully about the point they were trying to make. It goes without saying that if the population was more intelligent, they'd need fewer social controls in place to stop them basically cocking society up and making a mess of themselves and each other. Therefore you could say that the 'less intelligent' people 'feel safe' in an authoritarian country because they don't need to work out a sense of wrong and right for themselves. More intelligent people favour more liberal social policies because they are left to their own devices to conduct their lives on a kind of unwritten contract with the state that they won't take liberties with this freedom.
When you think about it that way it's self-explanatory. What it's got to do with the economy is anyone's guess. I suppose you could say that a more intelligent person would recognise their place and role in society and would favour an economic policy that prized a balance between fairness and meritocracy. Thing is, that's a centrist economic view. There are proven flaws in extremes of both versions of capitalism, manifested in the collapse of communism following its failure to look after its people, and the ruinous boom-and-bust cycles of monetarism that promotes short-termism, selfishness and the avoidance of responsibility amongst both those perennially out of work and those routinely making off with taxpayer's money.
I would go one stage further and say that not only is the average right-winger less intelligent than the average left-winger, but that the average left-winger is also less intelligent than the average person.
I assume a typical sample of people (average IQ 100) would be like this:
49 right wingers with an average IQ of 98
49 left wingers with an average IQ of 99
2 people with an average IQ of 174 who wouldn't be silly enough to pigeon hole themselves into being either left or right.
I want the country run by the last 2 people, not the other 98.
I assume a typical sample of people (average IQ 100) would be like this:
49 right wingers with an average IQ of 98
49 left wingers with an average IQ of 99
2 people with an average IQ of 174 who wouldn't be silly enough to pigeon hole themselves into being either left or right.
I want the country run by the last 2 people, not the other 98.
12gauge said:
Devil2575 said:
I think this study is spot on
It certainly seems to explain the views on this forum
Actually I thought that it was not a case of the right being less intelligent, but that people who have low intelligence and happen to be right wing are more likely to be racist/homophobic etc.
This makes perfect sense as right wing tends to be less tollerant of change etc. I imagine alsmost everyone who is a member of organisations like the BNP etc would fall into the low intelligence/rightwimg catagory.
At the other end of the spectrum sociallists and liberals tend to be a lot more tollerant.
I see just as much hate come from UAF/left wing types, just directed at different groups. They rather toe the current consensus rather than react against it like the "far right". There is no doubt in my mind that if this was 1930s Germany the UAF lot would be the first to sign up to the SS as just like they now fall for the multicultural propaganda, they would have fallen for anti-semitic propaganda back then.It certainly seems to explain the views on this forum
Actually I thought that it was not a case of the right being less intelligent, but that people who have low intelligence and happen to be right wing are more likely to be racist/homophobic etc.
This makes perfect sense as right wing tends to be less tollerant of change etc. I imagine alsmost everyone who is a member of organisations like the BNP etc would fall into the low intelligence/rightwimg catagory.
At the other end of the spectrum sociallists and liberals tend to be a lot more tollerant.
I find the truth is somewhere in the middle. Multiculturalism isnt all bad, but its not all good either. The centre right (not the far right) have a healthy skepticism of all govt I find. I simply dont believe psychologically human beings are that different. Its just manifested in slightly different ways politically.
So in that sense, saying the UAF are idiots hardly goes against the suggestion that a traditionally left-minded person is more intelligent that a right-minded person.
alock said:
I would go one stage further and say that not only is the average right-winger less intelligent than the average left-winger, but that the average left-winger is also less intelligent than the average person.
I assume a typical sample of people (average IQ 100) would be like this:
49 right wingers with an average IQ of 98
49 left wingers with an average IQ of 99
2 people with an average IQ of 174 who wouldn't be silly enough to pigeon hole themselves into being either left or right.
I want the country run by the last 2 people, not the other 98.
Quite - the most successful politicians should be all rights be those who recognise the need to alter their levels of social and economic authoritarianism/libertarianism in accordance with prevailing conditions.I assume a typical sample of people (average IQ 100) would be like this:
49 right wingers with an average IQ of 98
49 left wingers with an average IQ of 99
2 people with an average IQ of 174 who wouldn't be silly enough to pigeon hole themselves into being either left or right.
I want the country run by the last 2 people, not the other 98.
The kind of person who joins a political party without any intention of actually becoming a politician is a moron, frankly. I meet members of Labour and the Tories who genuinely believe that their party is capable of doing no wrong, and no decision they've ever taken has misfired. Only the Liberal Democrat members seem to challenge their own party, but only over the formation of the coalition, and they do it by joining the Labour party.
We should all be floating voters. Makes no sense to chain yourself forever to a ship that may well sink (electorally or morally).
It sounds like a case of taking the answer and working back to the question to me.
For starters right and left wing are pretty useless monikers in sccientific terms. Was Stalin left wing becuase he was a sworn communist or right wing because he killed lots of Jews? And Hitler right wing because he was a fascist, or left wing because he was a National [i[Socialist[/i]?
Was Enoch Powell, with his bibliography of academic works in Greek a simpleton? Was Gordon Brown really the great intellectual Labourites made him out to be, on the strength of a 10 year PhD in the history of the Labour Party in Scotland?
If left wing people are so clever, how come they have been consistently wrong about everything for 100 years, and how come they die quicker than proper people?
For starters right and left wing are pretty useless monikers in sccientific terms. Was Stalin left wing becuase he was a sworn communist or right wing because he killed lots of Jews? And Hitler right wing because he was a fascist, or left wing because he was a National [i[Socialist[/i]?
Was Enoch Powell, with his bibliography of academic works in Greek a simpleton? Was Gordon Brown really the great intellectual Labourites made him out to be, on the strength of a 10 year PhD in the history of the Labour Party in Scotland?
If left wing people are so clever, how come they have been consistently wrong about everything for 100 years, and how come they die quicker than proper people?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff