British and American children who are less intelligent are more likely to grow up to be conservative and/or bigots, according to new research published in Physiological Science. The research study, "Bright minds and dark attitudes", used data from two British studies that tested the intelligence of children born in 1958 and 1970 …
Re: Well, dude, at least you know something about women -- if nothing else.
Well, thanks for the thought, LG, but I would suggest it's a bit late in the day for me to be dating (and Mr B might be a bit unimpressed at the idea too!). Besides, I'm sure Ms Bejo will be too busy hanging onto Sean Penn's coattails and making publicity-seeking statements about the Falklands to be out dating. Where one Hollywood sheep goes, the others soon follow.
Studies like this make me want to hurl
They are long on conclusion, short on method and analysis and in all likelihood the data was made to fit the predetermined conclusion.
As we all know, it is the white mice we have to fear, and this researcher has as with many others fallen prey to their cunning ministrations and orchestrations.
Other than that it is amusing to see the revisionists hard at work trying to tell the world that Stalin et al weren't really the epitome of the left but were really right wing stooges.
The defensive attitude of our more intelligent male posters explained.
"In several articles, J. Phillipe Rushton, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario, raised an uproar by claiming that different races have different brain and penis sizes. As brain size decreases, he maintained, penis size increases. He concluded that races with larger brains are more intelligent but also more sexually inhibited, while those with smaller brains are not quite as bright but mate like bunny rabbits. Last year, in a new study, he repeated his ideas about brain size with an added twist--within each race, he said, women have smaller brains than men. C. Davison Ankney, a Canadian colleague of Rushton’s, joined in with a reexamination of data, taken from more than 1,200 corpses in Cleveland, that had shown no significant difference in brain size between men and women. Ankney claimed the analysis was simply faulty. Done properly, he said, size differences became apparent--and meaningful. Women’s brains were smaller.". Apologies to the distaff side. (If this is a pun, I take credit for it.)
Paris, because her surprises come in large packages.
How can insulting less intelligent members of society as "thick dimwits" be considered morally permissible, while insulting people for other attributes of their make up is considered impermissible? This attitude would appear to be totally contrary to the stated aim of addressing "negativity toward out-groups".
There are several obvious flaws in how the data was gathered and the assumptions that it makes.
1. Have the samples been adjusted to compensate for how many years the subject spent in an educational (i.e. anti-racist and anti-homophobic indoctrination) institution? Those subjects who spend fewer of their formative years in such an institution will consequently be exposed to less indoctrination and thus be at a perceived disadvantage.
2. Given the environment of discrimination against racism or homophobia that exists within educational establishments, did those collecting the data not consider that anyone who has racist or homophobic beliefs is repressed within that environment? For instance, people are socially excluded, physically attacked and in some instances mandated to leave an educational institution for professing such opinions. Given this discriminatory environment, the researchers ought to have considered whether subjects provided truthful answers to all these questions.
3. The indefinite wording of the questions does not allow accurate conclusions to be drawn. For example, affirming that the subject "wouldn't mind working with people from other races" does not prove they are not racist. "wouldn't mind working with" does not discount a preference to work with people of their own race. Nor does it indicate whether they believe races are all equal.
By combining this new research with the conclusions of the Bell Curve theory (that racial differences exist in average IQ) we can infer that black people are most likely to have conservative, racist, homophobic (or "dark attitudes"). What possible benefit to society does this divisive research serve?
The perfect study!!
"The team stress these results are based around median levels, meaning there are plenty of smart racists and tolerant thick people. "
So in other words, the study is absolutely worthless.
I file this firmly under...
"It sounds like something I'd like to be true and hearing someone else say what I think means it is", right next to "Internet Explorer users have a lower IQ than users of other browsers"
I question any study that claims to take geopolitical data mashed from both the UK and US, ignoring any other variables such as environment, then form coherent conclusions from those results.
For a start, the US does not have a 'left' and a 'right' political landscape - the US has 'center-right' and 'far-right'. Subsequently many UK 'conservatives' espouse a number of values that US 'conservatives' would find 'liberal' or 'communist'.
Based on the premise above, I'd be interested to see what the conclusion would be if it were country that was used as the dichotomy. I imagine the results would look unfavourably on all Americans if country were factored in. Similarly, what of race? Or would factoring race cause the study to be less accepted by those with a political bias and a vested interest in the outcome?
Meh, I'm tired of seeing political debate framed in such a way. All I see is a group of people with slightly different ideals; unanimous in their attempt to keep themselves in power and take a slice of the pie whilst they're at it.
The 'left' and 'right' divide, which has a variable sliding scale depending on which country it is set, benefits them more than anyone else. They've convinced the great unwashed that the enemy is on the other side, rather than seeing the true enemy to be the man behind the curtain who pulls the strings of both.
I'm really bright and incredibly right-wing!
sounds like Diederik Stapel has a new job...
The ability to accept being wrong
Four pages worth of comments... very entertaining to read. Most of my points have been made already.
I think part of what makes a truly intelligent person is the ability to perceive when a mistake is made. It's all well and good to have great ideas, but if you're not able to discern when those great ideas aren't working out then intelligent you are not. I'll add to my description of intelligence the ability to accept ideas from other people and to recognize when those ideas are superior to your own.
There are extremists on both sides who are deeply entrenched and unwilling to consider different points of view, let alone compromise. You'll recognize them because right from go any argument turns personal. Anybody who disagrees with their points of view are immediately branded an enemy and not worthy of basic human decency and respect. These are the truly stupid people and the ones who represent a real danger to humanity. You can find them on the extreme right and left. No side has a monopoly.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Apple cored: Samsung sells 10 million Galaxy S4 in a month
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system