Ken Berwitz

Do you "know" that political conservatives are more likely to be ignorant and prejudiced? You do if you read yahoo news. 

Excerpted from the yahoo article:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.

Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

"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."

Let me get this straight:  Gordon Hodson, someone I (and I bet you) have never heard of, sends an email to livescience.com about a study we are not privy to anything but bits and piece of, and this is worthy of a feature article smearing everyone who doesn't toe the liberal-left ideological line?  You're kidding, right?

Well, yahoo.com is not kidding, because it published the article.  So let's look into this more extensively.

To start, it might be worth noting that livescience.com defines itself as a partner of MSNBC, and that it has a link to Elizabeth Warren's web site.  That should explain a lot right there.

Regarding the article itself, livescience.com's home page uses a "teaser" which says "low intelligence may lead to a craving for order, authority and hierarchy".  Thus, presumably, high intelligence must lead to a craving for lack of order, lack of authority and no hierarchy.  Do you agree with that premise?  Me neither.

Then, when you click on the teaser and get to the article, there is a little blurb which says that "a new study finds links between low intelligence and racism, prejudice and homophobia" - which is then tied to political conservatives as if they are synonymous. 

Does this sound like a legitimate research study, or a term paper for a political science class at Berkeley?

But, to be fair, we should see if the findings support such a claim.  So let's continue by considering how the article identifies this dreadful scourge of conservatism:

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

Un-frigging-believable. 

Can you tell me how conservatism would be linked to a belief that family life suffers when mum (mum???) isn't around during the day, or that schools should teach children to obey authority?  Do these geniuses think that no social liberals would agree with those statements?  Do you have to be conservative to believe family life suffers when one of the family members isn't there?

And then we have the racist component - which, as described, is beyond pathetic.  First the article cites an overtly racist question -- and then it renders the question valueless by assuring us that people are racially biased no matter how egalitarian they are.  If that is true, what is the difference how an overtly racist question is answered?  Everyone is racist anyway.

Now for the funniest part:  Hodson himself admits the study is BS:

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said

Well, well well. 

Here's something for Mr. Hodson, and livescience, and yahoo.com, to think about:  Using exactly the same premise - averages, over large groups rather than individual assessments - it can be proven that Black people are not as educated, not as successful and are more criminal than White people.  On average, every one of those claims is just as empirically true as the "findings" about social conservatives. 

But... but... I'm sure Mr. Hodson would say ...what were his own words?  Oh yeah....that such findings aren't implying that all Black people are uneducated, unsuccessful and criminal, and all White people are educated, successful and law-abiding.  It's just averages over large groups.

If so, he would be right.  Being Black does not make a person anything but Black.  Therefore, looking at overall averages, with no context at all to them, is ridiculous.  What does it tell you about the next Black person you meet?  Nothing, that's what. 

Just as looking at overall "averages" based on arbitrary definitions of political conservatism, doesn't tell us anything at all about individual political conservatives.

So what is the point of this "study" - other than finding a gratuitous, nonsensical way to stereotype political conservatives, which yahoo.com was more than happy to put on its web site?

If you come up with one, do let me know.