First of all, human beings are complex creatures, social one minute, solitary in the next. We cannot always typify the human being, even if we can identify and articulate what we think is human nature. However, we can make some pretty spot-on educated guesses about types of people from what we observe. Chances are that a well-dressed young man or woman with a white-collar job may have fiscally conservative opinions but a hippy may not.
This study here goes out of its way to prove itself wrong.
From the abstract: (emphasis mine)
Extraordinary.
It's long been speculated- and commented- that those on the conservative end of the spectrum are thicker than whale omelets but seldom, according to the authors of the study, have conservatives been subjects of cognitive ability/social views studies. Don't let the plethora of citations the Hodson/Busseri study fool you, no matter how old, disparate and abstract they are. Also, do not be distracted by the lack of definitions or accounting for cultural and educational differences. For as much as the authors of this study may wish it, the reality is that life does not represent their erroneous view. There are too many variables not considered that would serve to unravel what is disguised as a legitimate study.
What is the definition of political, fiscal or social conservatism in the US as opposed to Canada, the United Kingdom or various countries in Asia? By the same token, what is the definition of liberalism? What do the authors of the study mean by intelligence? Do they mean academic, social or cultural, political, moral or professional intelligence, all of which can be valid and independent of one another? What is the definition of racism in this study? The racism of lowered expectations, as some may argue race-based programs are? The narrow definition of racism as white-on-black racism to the exclusion of the perniciousness of other kinds of racism? Grossly unfair. What does one have to say about skepticism? Is it not an expected tool of inquiry? Where does personal, professional and moral experience and judgment come in? Where do anomalies fit in this study? Does a homosexual who disagrees with "gay marriage" have a "...greater antihomosexual prejudice..." than a self-identified liberal who agrees with it? How would Hodson and Busseri qualify the words and actions to the opposite of what they are stating?
Why did Hodson and Busseri not use Canada in their study? Why not tap into the home-field? Could they have not found similar results in the Great White North where conservatism here still means big government, big business and loyalty to the Queen but not belief in the traditional family? There is nothing like the Great Canadian Anomaly to skew the results of a study which wouldn't match socio-political reality. Yes, there are plenty of fiscally and socially conservative people in Canada. I would guess they feel slighted- or relieved- that they are not painted as clinical knuckle-draggers. What would Hodson and Busseri do with largely fiscally and socially conservative Asian countries like China, Japan, South Korea and India where education, filial piety and socio-political and cultural castes are the norm? Imagine a racially homogenous classroom where children as young as six are expected to master language skills their peers in more diverse classrooms are not. They have the cognitive abilities but will that translate into social intelligence? I don't think Hodson and Busseri answered that in their study. I'm not suggesting the worst only that the mere supposition of heightened cognitive abilities directly relating to better relationships or social views in the future might be total bunk. Or maybe not considering the need for social and academic ignorance in places like Pakistan. That is also not addressed in the study. Maybe Hodson and Busseri will get to that later.
What intelligence are the authors referring to and could it encompass many meanings? Does academic intelligence equal moral intelligence, for example? In that case, bigoted monsters like the Nazis or the September eleventh hijackers must be models of intellectual and moral excellence. This is facetious in the extreme, yes, but if intelligence is related to behaviour, one must carefully consider how it is used. Even a learned man can be evil.
What of professional intelligence? Can a man who has had no financial experience lead the free world? Apparently not. Yet even questioning this is allegedly racist. Never mind that the fortunes of two neighbouring countries relies on the economic health of the other. It is better to offer one's trust willingly, rather than have it earned, and hope for the best. After all, the less you trust people, the less you pick up on inter-personal cues, the less you accurate you are in deciphering other people's behaviours and intentions. If one thought that the hype was exactly that, then one clearly has bigger problems.
The intricacies of finance seemed to also elude the so-called "Occupy..." crowd. Percentages were never explained, nor how money, if it could be collected, would be allotted. How could a generation of university-educated and apparently liberal-minded people not be capable of basic math? They also couldn't be counted on to be respectful, open-minded, chivalrous or tolerant. If liberals were, indeed, savvy and good-natured, how does one explain the Jew-hatred, the rapes, the financial naivety and the criminal behaviour? Quite a puzzling contradiction to a study that states the more liberal-minded one is, the more trusting, open and intelligent. Or perhaps the authors of the study DO have a point but have the wrong control group.
Hodson and Busseri don't define what conservatism is to different people. A conservative in Canada isn't the same as one in the US. Politically, conservatism differs in the US and Commonwealth states. By and large, however, the major political parties in the US, the United Kingdom and Canada that identify as conservative in the modern sense tend to be slightly more financially minded and politically protectionist than liberals who tend to be the opposite. A talking point of both liberals and conservatives is the size of government with the latter group wanting to limit the size of government and emphasise private industry which would ostensibly allow for innovation. How that is taken to mean preference for authoritarianism escapes me.
Does this political conservatism or liberalism therefore translate into social conservatism or liberalism? The Republican party in the US has long been accused of being racist yet historically they have proven to be socially progressive by ending slavery. One might argue that the policies of the Democrats, on the other hand, have served only to marginalise Black Americans. Stephen Harper, a clearly intelligent and capable Conservative leader, has been hyperbolically compared to late North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il and accused of being some sort of socially conservative extremist, despite no evidence to even suggest it. According to Hodson and Busseri:
Wouldn't calling a democratically elected leader of a liberal democracy "a dictator" be an attempt to legitimise a myth? What would be the psychological profile of a person who would make such dramatic parallels? Wouldn't it be safe to say that such a person has trust issues, an inability to pick up on personal or political cues and isn't capable of accurate assessment of facts?
One of the most comprehensive texts on the differing social attitudes and personal differences between conservatives and liberals produced is Peter Schweizer's Makers and Takers. In his book, Schweizer does not make so bold a statement as conservatives are cognitively deficient or that liberals are self-centred mental midgets but has instead compiled various studies, polls and articles that refute commonly-held misconceptions. Though intelligence quotients (or IQs) have been sometimes called "unfair", the authors of this study have no problem in using it as a measure by which the subjects are judged. Indeed, liberals have often believed they possessed the upper intellectual hand over conservatives though they could not demonstrate it, as seen in chapter six of Schweizer's book. This, among other things, are written about in Schweizer's book and offer an enlightening view of the North American political spectrum. Do read the whole thing.
I'm sure the authors of this study have not, much to their detriment. If I didn't know better, I would say that this study was an attempt to claim with some authority that anyone who identified as a conservative, particularly a social one, was intellectually and socially stunted. Allow me to be a skeptic and argue that this study is codswallop compiled for very political reasons and will be trotted out as an easy rejoinder very much the same way words like "racist", "homophobe" and "Islamophobe" are when an argument goes pear-shaped. But if one can hold a mirror to the world, one would see no truth in the study at all.
(Gracias, El Barto)
This study here goes out of its way to prove itself wrong.
"Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes - Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact" is a study done by Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri of Brock University that purports to have proven a link between low cognitive ability, right-wing ideology (read: social conservatism as one will read in the study) and near anti-social behaviour.
From the abstract: (emphasis mine)
Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.
Extraordinary.
It's long been speculated- and commented- that those on the conservative end of the spectrum are thicker than whale omelets but seldom, according to the authors of the study, have conservatives been subjects of cognitive ability/social views studies. Don't let the plethora of citations the Hodson/Busseri study fool you, no matter how old, disparate and abstract they are. Also, do not be distracted by the lack of definitions or accounting for cultural and educational differences. For as much as the authors of this study may wish it, the reality is that life does not represent their erroneous view. There are too many variables not considered that would serve to unravel what is disguised as a legitimate study.
What is the definition of political, fiscal or social conservatism in the US as opposed to Canada, the United Kingdom or various countries in Asia? By the same token, what is the definition of liberalism? What do the authors of the study mean by intelligence? Do they mean academic, social or cultural, political, moral or professional intelligence, all of which can be valid and independent of one another? What is the definition of racism in this study? The racism of lowered expectations, as some may argue race-based programs are? The narrow definition of racism as white-on-black racism to the exclusion of the perniciousness of other kinds of racism? Grossly unfair. What does one have to say about skepticism? Is it not an expected tool of inquiry? Where does personal, professional and moral experience and judgment come in? Where do anomalies fit in this study? Does a homosexual who disagrees with "gay marriage" have a "...greater antihomosexual prejudice..." than a self-identified liberal who agrees with it? How would Hodson and Busseri qualify the words and actions to the opposite of what they are stating?
Why did Hodson and Busseri not use Canada in their study? Why not tap into the home-field? Could they have not found similar results in the Great White North where conservatism here still means big government, big business and loyalty to the Queen but not belief in the traditional family? There is nothing like the Great Canadian Anomaly to skew the results of a study which wouldn't match socio-political reality. Yes, there are plenty of fiscally and socially conservative people in Canada. I would guess they feel slighted- or relieved- that they are not painted as clinical knuckle-draggers. What would Hodson and Busseri do with largely fiscally and socially conservative Asian countries like China, Japan, South Korea and India where education, filial piety and socio-political and cultural castes are the norm? Imagine a racially homogenous classroom where children as young as six are expected to master language skills their peers in more diverse classrooms are not. They have the cognitive abilities but will that translate into social intelligence? I don't think Hodson and Busseri answered that in their study. I'm not suggesting the worst only that the mere supposition of heightened cognitive abilities directly relating to better relationships or social views in the future might be total bunk. Or maybe not considering the need for social and academic ignorance in places like Pakistan. That is also not addressed in the study. Maybe Hodson and Busseri will get to that later.
What intelligence are the authors referring to and could it encompass many meanings? Does academic intelligence equal moral intelligence, for example? In that case, bigoted monsters like the Nazis or the September eleventh hijackers must be models of intellectual and moral excellence. This is facetious in the extreme, yes, but if intelligence is related to behaviour, one must carefully consider how it is used. Even a learned man can be evil.
What of professional intelligence? Can a man who has had no financial experience lead the free world? Apparently not. Yet even questioning this is allegedly racist. Never mind that the fortunes of two neighbouring countries relies on the economic health of the other. It is better to offer one's trust willingly, rather than have it earned, and hope for the best. After all, the less you trust people, the less you pick up on inter-personal cues, the less you accurate you are in deciphering other people's behaviours and intentions. If one thought that the hype was exactly that, then one clearly has bigger problems.
The intricacies of finance seemed to also elude the so-called "Occupy..." crowd. Percentages were never explained, nor how money, if it could be collected, would be allotted. How could a generation of university-educated and apparently liberal-minded people not be capable of basic math? They also couldn't be counted on to be respectful, open-minded, chivalrous or tolerant. If liberals were, indeed, savvy and good-natured, how does one explain the Jew-hatred, the rapes, the financial naivety and the criminal behaviour? Quite a puzzling contradiction to a study that states the more liberal-minded one is, the more trusting, open and intelligent. Or perhaps the authors of the study DO have a point but have the wrong control group.
Hodson and Busseri don't define what conservatism is to different people. A conservative in Canada isn't the same as one in the US. Politically, conservatism differs in the US and Commonwealth states. By and large, however, the major political parties in the US, the United Kingdom and Canada that identify as conservative in the modern sense tend to be slightly more financially minded and politically protectionist than liberals who tend to be the opposite. A talking point of both liberals and conservatives is the size of government with the latter group wanting to limit the size of government and emphasise private industry which would ostensibly allow for innovation. How that is taken to mean preference for authoritarianism escapes me.
Does this political conservatism or liberalism therefore translate into social conservatism or liberalism? The Republican party in the US has long been accused of being racist yet historically they have proven to be socially progressive by ending slavery. One might argue that the policies of the Democrats, on the other hand, have served only to marginalise Black Americans. Stephen Harper, a clearly intelligent and capable Conservative leader, has been hyperbolically compared to late North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il and accused of being some sort of socially conservative extremist, despite no evidence to even suggest it. According to Hodson and Busseri:
...Socially conservative ideologies have therefore been conceptualized as “legitimizing myths”...
Wouldn't calling a democratically elected leader of a liberal democracy "a dictator" be an attempt to legitimise a myth? What would be the psychological profile of a person who would make such dramatic parallels? Wouldn't it be safe to say that such a person has trust issues, an inability to pick up on personal or political cues and isn't capable of accurate assessment of facts?
One of the most comprehensive texts on the differing social attitudes and personal differences between conservatives and liberals produced is Peter Schweizer's Makers and Takers. In his book, Schweizer does not make so bold a statement as conservatives are cognitively deficient or that liberals are self-centred mental midgets but has instead compiled various studies, polls and articles that refute commonly-held misconceptions. Though intelligence quotients (or IQs) have been sometimes called "unfair", the authors of this study have no problem in using it as a measure by which the subjects are judged. Indeed, liberals have often believed they possessed the upper intellectual hand over conservatives though they could not demonstrate it, as seen in chapter six of Schweizer's book. This, among other things, are written about in Schweizer's book and offer an enlightening view of the North American political spectrum. Do read the whole thing.
I'm sure the authors of this study have not, much to their detriment. If I didn't know better, I would say that this study was an attempt to claim with some authority that anyone who identified as a conservative, particularly a social one, was intellectually and socially stunted. Allow me to be a skeptic and argue that this study is codswallop compiled for very political reasons and will be trotted out as an easy rejoinder very much the same way words like "racist", "homophobe" and "Islamophobe" are when an argument goes pear-shaped. But if one can hold a mirror to the world, one would see no truth in the study at all.
(Gracias, El Barto)
5 comments:
Fantastic work as usual. Have you considered this as being worthy to be a letter to the editor(s)?
~Your Brother~
You flatter one so cognitively impaired as I.
I think the blogosphere is where this belongs. When one thinks of how newspaper readership is down and biased (I must picked up on the inter-personal cues of leftist slants therein), this blog post belongs here.
I just re-read the study and noticed this gem ;
" Studies have shown that individuals with lower levels of general intelligence (g) are less trusting of other people, less sensitive to interpersonal cues, and less accurate in deciphering other people’s behaviors and intentions "
That is also linked to people with very high intelligence ( re: Aspergers Syndrome).
~Your Brother~
Damn the facts! Why can't you just accept this high-brow attempt to discredit social conservatives and move on?
As a conservative political scientist, I have been astounded by liberals from other fields - say, comparative literature - who fully believe they know more about welfare policy and American government than me. As Reagan said: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
Post a Comment