Low IQ behind some conservative beliefs

Comedy character Larry the Cable Guy gits ‘er done. (AP)

Children with low intelligence are more likely to grow up to be social conservatives and racists, researchers found in a study published out of the U.K.

The study, which appeared in the journal Psychological Science and was written up by LifeScience, built upon previous research linking low education with prejudice, using data from two studies testing IQ and then political beliefs.

“As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias,” LifeScience wrote.

Lead researcher Gordon Hodson, of Brock University in Ontario, concluded that people with low IQs are attracted to the hierarchy and structure in socially conservative institutions.

His findings are expected to cause some controversy since they play into some stereotypical notions of the political divide in the U.S., where liberals can be characterized as elitist and intellectual and conservatives as dumb and backwards.

The Daily Beast, however, points out that the report only addressed socially conservative beliefs and not the whole spectrum of political and economic values of the right.

Hodson also noted that the results should not be used broadly across all people of either political affiliation, saying: “There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals.”

In the study, researchers used two forms of IQ tests to determine intelligence and a survey of statements on family life, authority and race relations to determine levels of social conservatism and racism, LifeScience reported. In another study, Hodson and colleagues found a similar link between low education and homophobia.

“They’ve pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics,” said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. “When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it’s bound to upset somebody.”

Categories: General
Kate Shellnutt

10 Responses

  1. Demo Graphic says:

    Does mean that the illegal immigrant vote that the Democrats are planning to be theirs will really be in the Republican column?

  2. Bamster says:

    Wow, so racism is a naturally associated with all conservative values. These writers really need to re-evaluate their own overt bias (we already know they won’t) and stop fostering hatred towards conservatives. Racism is an animal unto its own and is fostered by ALL races and political affiliations. I assume this article is also looking just at white racism, since that’s the only one that matters to the media, right?

  3. Dan Kwail says:

    I think the missing information here is regarding one of the foundations of the study:

    How do the researchers define racism?

    This is not a fixed variable, so the results of the research would be clearly open for debate. There is no single definition of how to define racism. Studies on human behavior are subjective – not objective, and inherent flaw if claims of a conclusion are made.

    Cry not, Republicans – you make create a similar study which may claim negative personality characteristics upon liberals. As long as I am not funding these silly studies, I choose to laugh it off.

  4. Mary says:

    I think Liberty First’s comments sort of prove the point.

  5. Liberty First says:

    I’m sure if the results of this study can be corraborated, i think one should be done to determine if children growing up in a liberal household, like Obammy and his white mammy, grow up to be limp wristed sissy like apologists for the country that gave them everything through affirmative action. I haven’t the time to review the data of this spurious study, but the Wall Street Journal did and came away with a whole different interpretation of the results.

    I would trust the impartiallity of the Wall Street Journal over this limp wristed sissy rag any day.

  6. Mike says:

    Richie, this article was actualy fairly unbiased. Was the journal of Psych Sci that ran the poorly written article 😉

  7. Mike says:

    Cherry picking facts to support a predetermined conclusion. Well done Life Science/Psychological Science. Stop giving intelectuals a bad name you tools.

  8. oldswede says:

    And RichieF jumps up to prove the research is correct by showing his inability to comprehend the reading matter.

  9. RichieF says:

    Another Libtard Blog of tainted data, and missinformation.

  10. Heath Barr says:

    Why does this not surprise me?