Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    05 Feb '12 08:38
    I was just leafing through the AD (a Dutch newspaper) and stumbled upon this article:

    http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1013/Buitenland/article/detail/3151600/2012/02/02/Conservatieven-en-racisten-hebben-een-lager-IQ.dhtml

    I nearly choked on my pretzel in joy.
    What a great topic, I thought, for my first proper thread of 2012.

    Not only do people with a lower IQ lean towards "social" conservativism, they're also more inclined to be racist.
    The simpler world vision tends to be more attractive (sort of like moths attracted to lightbulbs) to the less intelligent. The social conservative agenda seems to offer more structure and stability.

    Here's a thread in English on the topic:
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/study-suggests-low-iq-social-conservatism-and-prejudice-go-hand-in-hand/

    Hands up who's a tory!

    hahahaha
  2. 05 Feb '12 21:07
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I was just leafing through the AD (a Dutch newspaper) and stumbled upon this article:

    http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1013/Buitenland/article/detail/3151600/2012/02/02/Conservatieven-en-racisten-hebben-een-lager-IQ.dhtml

    I nearly choked on my pretzel in joy.
    What a great topic, I thought, for my first proper thread of 2012.

    Not only do people with a lower ...[text shortened]... iq-social-conservatism-and-prejudice-go-hand-in-hand/

    Hands up who's a tory!

    hahahaha
    I think we've already had a thread on this. If I put any credence in IQ tests, I might find it relevant.
  3. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    05 Feb '12 22:20
  4. 06 Feb '12 17:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir


    Hands up who's a tory!

    hahahaha[/b]
    *Puts hand up*

    Firstly Conservativism is a broad term, surely all progressive thinkers (and I like to think of myself as a socially liberal progressive) have some Conservative tendencies. Even the most vehement progressives don't want to change *everything* about society. Conservativism as a concept can be found in both left and right wing politics.

    Secondly, nobody polled MY IQ, merely a sample group. Similar things have been used to suggest that different ethnic backgrounds have varying IQs...

    http://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-IQ-correlations-700.html

    All of which have been rubbished - remember the trouble that Professor Kanazawa found himself in by suggesting the same thing about Africans?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/highereducation.research
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    11 Feb '12 11:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I was just leafing through the AD (a Dutch newspaper) and stumbled upon this article:

    http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1013/Buitenland/article/detail/3151600/2012/02/02/Conservatieven-en-racisten-hebben-een-lager-IQ.dhtml

    I nearly choked on my pretzel in joy.
    What a great topic, I thought, for my first proper thread of 2012.

    Not only do people with a lower iq-social-conservatism-and-prejudice-go-hand-in-hand/

    Hands up who's a tory!

    hahahaha
    It is simply offensive to build a debate around the alleged stupidity of much of the population, easy though it obviously is. We have to start by accepting that the intelligence curve of any population not only follows a normal curve but is negatively skewed through the impact of misfortune. (Rarely does good fortune make people more intelligent, alas.) These are the people whose votes will determine elections and rightly so - we have to decide how to communicate with them and win their votes. ("We" of course live comfotably in the upper part of the curve, don't we? But not normbenign of course... )

    A democrat wants a politics that includes the whole population as far as possible and hopefully benefits all. A demagogue exploits the ignorance of many to secure benefits for a minority. What is unpleasant in New Right politics is the exploitation of emotive and irrational rhetoric to confuse the masses into voting contrary to their own best interests, creating a vicious society for the benefit of the very rich. What is infuriating in the Left is that it seems to imagine the only way to communicate with the masses (whom they appear to despise) is by seeming to be right wing on many social issues - as indeed they often are these days.

    In this link, writing about the same research findings, Monbiot points out that the problem is not primarily the stupidity of conservatives, but rather the inability of the progressive parties to articulate a platform which such people can both understand and relate to. "They fail to produce a coherent analysis of what has gone wrong and why, or to make an uncluttered case for social justice, redistribution and regulation. The conceptual stupidities of conservatism are matched by the strategic stupidities of liberalism."

    http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left?cat=commentisfree&type=article

    In the sister thread to this one, Thread 144855, Moon 1969 wrote: My same experience. In Texas when I was a kid, "Republican" was a bad word. I didn't even know a Republican. It was about the working man, unions, work safety, fairness in the work place, compensation for work deaths and injuries, guns, hunting, land and oil equitable treatment for individuals, etc. This is a nice, simple and easily grasped argument for voting Democrat. Gone are the days.. Gone too, I suspect, are the type of Democrat described here. Certainly in GB, gone are the traditional Labour Party.
  6. 11 Feb '12 12:02
    Social conservatives aren't stupid. Most of them are too busy trying to make a living to give much thought to anything else. I'm speaking here of the working class conservatives, of course. If you want to know why they have a problem with democrats, I can explain it in two words: Limousine Liberals. Most liberals (hell politicians) have no idea what it's like to be scraping by and living paycheck to paycheck.

    Think about the healthcare plan they passed here. People have no idea what's in it because it's almost 2000 pages long. What working class person has time to read it? What working class person could understand it even if they had time to read it? Then they hear that that their representatives couldn't be bothered to read it either. Then you have the democratic leadership saying things like "We don't know what the effects will be until we pass it."

    If you're making 45000 a year and trying to feed a family and you hear they're passing a bill they haven't read that might effect your income and then you hear that they're just gonna fire that son of a b**ch up and see what happens....
  7. 11 Feb '12 22:05 / 1 edit
    Isn't the topic sentence of this thread obvious? Especially for brainwashed simple-minded social conservatives who want a theocracy and who vote against their economic interest in supporting leaders waging class warfare against the working middle class with implementing the government transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%?
  8. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    11 Feb '12 22:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Social conservatives aren't stupid. Most of them are too busy trying to make a living to give much thought to anything else. I'm speaking here of the working class conservatives, of course. If you want to know why they have a problem with democrats, I can explain it in two words: Limousine Liberals. Most liberals (hell politicians) have no idea what it's u hear that they're just gonna fire that son of a b**ch up and see what happens....
    The people may or may not be stupid - it is not useful to classify them collectively as stupid.

    What is stupid is the arguments used and the policies proposed and you illustrate this so well that I might be tempted to ... but no, can't call you stupid just for falling hook line and sinker for another right wing scare story to divert you from the reality.

    If you're making 45,000 a year and trying to feed a family and you hear you need dialysis every day over maybe a two year period, then maybe you will wonder how to pay for that? As I understand it from a friend living in Texas, when even quite comfortably off people get a serious illness diagnosed, they go straight to bankruptcy. How many Americans go without adequate treatment for lack of insurance cover and personal wealth? How is it ok that the wealthiest nation on earth has such crap health services? You over treat the rich (which is in itself not just wasteful but deeply unpleasant for the patient and bad medical practice) and fail to treat the poor.

    You cannot privatise all risk. Only by bearing the burden collectively as a social cost can you achieve acceptable dignity for everyone. Look - even an insurance policy is a social, collective effort to spread the costs of risk. Most of us hope never to make a claim surely but we still pay out for many types of insurance because we cannot afford the risk. But it is not realistic for most people to insure against all that can happen in life - it just isn't. And even then - how well could you trust the insurance industry to protect you when you need it? The record is not great.