# Right-wingers are less intelligent than left-wingers: Study



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2012)

We have had one or two recent 'visitors' who are claiming to be highly educated, yet incapable of constructing a logical argument, mostly due to the lack of ability in using correct English writting skills.  Ones who claim to earn their education money through working for the large corporations they also vehemently oppose in the form of protests and the Protest Movement.



> *Article found February 10, 2012*
> 
> Right-wingers are less intelligent than left-wingers: Study
> LINK
> ...




More comments on LINK


=========================================================================================================





> Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study
> 
> 
> LINK
> ...



More comments on LINK

This may be a prime example of Statistics being skewed to meet the desires of the 'group' conducting it.


----------



## Pusser (10 Feb 2012)

Hmmm.  And here I thought that I was a left-winger because my stick goes on that side and lets me pass and shoot better.  Hoo noo itz cuz ise smartur?


----------



## Occam (10 Feb 2012)

CBC and The Huffington Post tripping over each other to cover the story in 3....2....1....


----------



## cphansen (10 Feb 2012)

I have a really hard time keeping my supper down when I see nonsense like this.

First let me say I am politically left of center but I also know that I have been debated to a tie by some right of center individuals. But these are exceptional people who have been able to produce verifiable facts that have caused me to sit back and re examine my own views.

The thing I find suspect with this study is they haven't said what they defined as native intelligence, 

The British Cohort study said they based it on tests of cognitive ability, but the article does not state what these tests were or how they were scored. 

The 1958 study said nothing about about what they used to define intelligence, but from the date, the only tests I could think of, would be IQ tests, and if you've read a bit you can score high on IQ tests, since they are mostly based on general knowledge. This to my mind is not a mark of native intelligence but simply being like a magpie and collecting shiny trinkets of lnowledge.

I am, like many others, predisposed to believe things that make me look good but for gosh sakes give me some verifiable facts instead of just trying to overwhelm me with a load of pablum. My cats, who are singularily brilliant for cats, can put up a better argument than this.


----------



## GnyHwy (10 Feb 2012)

Left wing and right wing is just part of the debate process.  Both have to be equally intelligent to have a debate.  Part of the problem lies with what most of us know as "ugly baby syndrome", whereas your opinion is right (your baby is beautiful) and you are unwilling to change (seeing your baby as ugly).

The true answer to anything is likely a lot closer to the middle than either side will ever admit.


----------



## Remius (10 Feb 2012)

I don't know.  I've been following the republican primaries.  The guys who conducted the study may be on to something...


----------



## sappermcfly (10 Feb 2012)

In my opinion, any extreme beliefs on either side may be indicative of less than ideal intelligence. I personally subscribe to the left - right paradigm theory. It seems to be playing out quite nicely nowadays. 

Also for every study conducted by a university, or an individual, opposite results from another study are just a matter of time.
Examples:

 Milk is good for, milk is bad for you
 Cell phones safe, Cell phones cause cancer
 Global warming happening, Global warming not happening
 and so on and so on.


----------



## GnyHwy (10 Feb 2012)

sappermcfly said:
			
		

> In my opinion, any extreme beliefs on either side may be indicative of less than ideal intelligence.



I agree to an extent, although I don't believe it's a lack of intelligence; it is a refusal and inability to listen.  Both sides have good ideas; it is a matter of the leadership swallowing their pride and sorting out which ideas are truly the best.


----------



## exabedtech (10 Feb 2012)

This is a ridiculous topic.  To pigeon-hole all people into one of 2 ill-defined groups is foolish enough.  To declare one of these imaginary groups to be more intelligent than the other without quantifying exactly what they mean by intelligence is even more foolish.

Are Asians smarter than Caucasians?
Are red heads smarter than blondes?
Are tall people smarter than short people?

Each of these arguments, as dumb as they are, would be more reasonable than left-wing vs right-wing since at least the basic definition of who you are studying can be made just a bit more concrete.

Gawd... I get SO tired of what passes for news these days.   :


----------



## fraserdw (10 Feb 2012)

It's coming from the UK, the greatest nanny state on Earth so it is not very credible.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Feb 2012)

This was on Sympatico a week or so ago. Sympatico has a bad habit of regurgitating news and (stupid) opinion pieces days/weeks later. 

Along this line Redeye previously posted similar disinformation, also added that those watching FOX News were similarly disadvantaged.

We all understand that Redeye watches Fox News in his closet.


----------



## Redeye (10 Feb 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> It's coming from the UK, the greatest nanny state on Earth so it is not very credible.



Not only does this statement display an excellent example of a logical fallacy known as "non sequitur", the study is a Canadian one. Not the first to come to this conclusion, but the methodology of the studies is ... well ... I don't put a lot of stock in them. However, numerous studies suggest that people who lean right are more consistently misinformed, and the right wing propaganda machine probably bears some responsibility for that - it's fairly well documented.


----------



## GnyHwy (10 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> This is a ridiculous topic.



A ridiculous article?  I agree.  

A ridiculous topic?  I disagree.

Many people are set in their beliefs.  Most people have strong beliefs, but I hope they have the fortitude to change when necessary.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Not only does this statement display an excellent example of a logical fallacy known as "non sequitur", the study is a Canadian one. Not the first to come to this conclusion, but the methodology of the studies is ... well ... I don't put a lot of stock in them. However, numerous studies suggest that people who lean right are more consistently misinformed, and the right wing propaganda machine probably bears some responsibility for that - it's fairly well documented.



Is that the sound of a broken record i hear ?

 :


----------



## Redeye (10 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Is that the sound of a broken record i hear ?
> 
> :



Well, as soon as you refute the statement, maybe I'll stop reminding people of it. Good luck with that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> This is a ridiculous topic.  To pigeon-hole all people into one of 2 ill-defined groups is foolish enough.  To declare one of these imaginary groups to be more intelligent than the other without quantifying exactly what they mean by intelligence is even more foolish.
> 
> Are Asians smarter than Caucasians?
> Are red heads smarter than blondes?
> ...



I couldn't agree more. I can't even understand why intelligent people are debating the merits and faults, here and elsewhere.

The study achieved it's goal. That was, not to inform or enlighten, but to cause dissention and derision. It seems to have worked, judging by the activity being held here.

When I first saw the article, I was going to accuse George of trolling (  ). Perhaps I wasn't that far off. :


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Are tall people smarter than short people?



Yes


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Yes



The air up there is rarer.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When I first saw the article, I was going to accuse George of trolling (  ). Perhaps I wasn't that far off. :



This RADIO CHATTER......no other place for a topic like this one.......other than the dumpster........

It is a Lefty Feel Good Study, conducted by a Lefties for Lefties.     ;D


----------



## aesop081 (10 Feb 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is a Lefty Feel Good Study, conducted by a Lefties for Lefties.   *Redeye*  ;D


----------



## GAP (10 Feb 2012)

> Quote from: exabedtech on Today at 17:58:49
> 
> Are tall people smarter than short people?





			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Yes




How? with all that lack of oxygen, somethings' gotta give.................


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> However, numerous studies suggest that people who lean right are more consistently misinformed, and the right wing propaganda machine probably bears some responsibility for that - it's fairly well documented.



Perhaps the left has been misinformed into believing that the right is misinformed?


----------



## cupper (10 Feb 2012)

So what does this mean for us centrist moderates?  :dunno:


----------



## GnyHwy (10 Feb 2012)

Are tall people smrtr?



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Yes



I agree.  It is much easier to look down your nose when you are taller.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Not only does this statement display an excellent example of a logical fallacy known as "non sequitur", ...blah blah blah


Go back to left wing brain academy and study your notes on logic.
A "non sequitor" argument is simply one "...in which an argument's conclusion does not follow from its premises"  So, you have stated a tautology, because saying that something is non sequitor is just another way of saying that it's a logical fallacy.


----------



## GnyHwy (10 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Go back to left wing brain academy and study your notes on logic.
> A "non sequitor" argument is simply one "...in which an argument's conclusion does not follow from its premises"  So, you have stated a tautology, because saying that something is non sequitor is just another way of saying that it's a logical fallacy.



Holy *&$%.  Those were grown up words.  Be back in a couple of hours, after I check the dictionary.


----------



## Danjanou (10 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I don't know.  I've been following the republican primaries.  The guys who conducted the study may be on to something...



I'll see that and raise you the NDP Leadership debates. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Are Asians smarter than Caucasians?
> Are red heads smarter than blondes?
> Are tall people smarter than short people?



So the ideal is a tall, red headed Asian


----------



## exabedtech (11 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So the ideal is a tall, red headed Asian



It is... and i'm still looking  8)


----------



## Redeye (11 Feb 2012)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I'll see that and raise you the NDP Leadership debates. ;D



Ooh tough one that is - two races to pick a loser, both of which are circling the drain at an increasing rate...


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So the ideal is a tall, red headed Asian


With big boobs of course.  ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> With big boobs of course.  ;D



Oh, I think women with small breasts are smarter.   :


----------



## GAP (11 Feb 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Oh, I think women with small breasts are smarter.   :



How? Aren't the excess brains that are causing her to be so smart carried in her boobs? I thought that was what all snuggling thingy was for......communication........drat!! 

Oh well, the habit's formed, like as not let it go to waste.......................


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Feb 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> How? Aren't the excess brains that are causing her to be so smart carried in her boobs?



Umm, no.  If that was the case then men with large.......oh, never mind, they only have enough brains to run one head at a time.   ;D


----------



## aesop081 (11 Feb 2012)

What about women with one boob smaller than the other ?


----------



## Spanky (11 Feb 2012)

Does that make a woman who has been "augmented" the definition of artificial intelligence?


----------



## GAP (11 Feb 2012)

Spanky said:
			
		

> Does that make a woman who has been "augmented" the definition of artificial intelligence?



uh huh....The augmentation drains it from the admirers......


----------



## medicineman (11 Feb 2012)

I liken this argument to what Jeff Foxworthy says about Southerners - the people that often end up publicly representing these folks are often the ones that perpetuate the perceptions people have.  His for instance, the people that get interviewed after a tornado hits that inevitable suburban tornado target - the trailer park.  They often aren't the best or brightest representatives of the South - but those are the folks that people see and hear...naturally, we assume the worst.  

 :2c:

MM


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Feb 2012)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Are tall people smrtr?
> 
> I agree.  It is much easier to look down your nose when you are taller.



As life should be.......................... :king:


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Feb 2012)

Almost 30% of the population is susceptible to the placebo effect. These people lack the critical reasoning ability to tell fact from fiction. This disability is completely unrelated to IQ and various other mostly useless measurements. They will believe whatever they are told and ignore any objective reality that interferes with their belief.

They fall for everything from Maoism to Scientology. These people are the biggest threat to a functional democracy. Any intelligent demagogue, regardless of political stripes, can whip them into a lynch mob. I really don't know what to do about this fundamental flaw in our system. Perhaps critical reasoning can be taught. I remember how the elite preached loudly that the majority of people were so stupid it would  be impossible to teach even a fraction of them to read. We would need to update how we educate people from the 18th century model we use now.

An actually useful experiment would be to find subjects highly susceptible to placebo.
1. Make them believe some crazy nonsense. 
2. Use various techniques to try to teach them critical reasoning. 
3.  Retest how suggestible they are.
5.  Repeat till they get it. ( at which point you get to vote, lol)


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2012)

Intelligence is a sign of treason. Just look at movies featuring artificial intelligence.


----------



## exabedtech (11 Feb 2012)

"In adulthood, the children were asked whether they agreed with statements such as, 'I wouldn't mind working with people from other races,' and 'I wouldn't mind if a family of a different race moved next door.'
They were also asked whether they agreed with statements about typically right-wing and socially conservative politics such as, 'Give law breakers stiffer sentences,' and 'Schools should teach children to obey authority.'
The researchers also compared their results against a 1986 American study which included tests of cognitive ability and questions assessing prejudice against homosexuals. "


Really??  Those are "typically right-wing" views??  This speaks more to the 'intelligence' of the Brock U clowns who published this crap.
So, to summarize... persons with right-wing views are deeply racist, hate homosexuals and believe schools should teach children to obey authority.   :facepalm:


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> So, to summarize... persons with right-wing views are deeply racist, hate homosexuals and believe schools should teach children to obey authority.



I wouldn't exactly expect a left wing liberal to hold those views. :


----------



## exabedtech (11 Feb 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I wouldn't exactly expect a left wing liberal to hold those views. :



I wouldn't expect anyone to hold those views, yet the argument seems to be that if someone holds racist and authoritarian views, they must be right-wingers.  
The real argument here has nothing to do with right vs left, more to do with racist vs not as racist if those are the types of questions posed.  In this argument, yes i'd agree than the racist types tend not to be our greatest thinkers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Feb 2012)

This  thread is a :trainwreck:. The subject wasn't worthy of discussion from the get go and it is certainly no more worthy now. There is no base line, no controls, no empirical data. It's like a poll. Designed to give the result the author wanted. Arguing and creating dissention, for or against, is producing the only effect that the study was designed for.

It's all "Sticks and stones, will break my bones" stuff. 

Give it a rest.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> I wouldn't expect anyone to hold those views, yet the argument seems to be that if someone holds racist and authoritarian views, they must be right-wingers.


Naturally, because we all know that the Left is enlightened...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Feb 2012)

If the $901 billion deficit that Obama is proposing is any indication, it would appear that basic math and economics weren't taken into account when they did this study.

Also, you know what they say.... "if you can walk and talk, you can go to Brock".... there's a cruder version to this too.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> I wouldn't expect anyone to hold those views, yet the argument seems to be that if someone holds racist and authoritarian views, they must be right-wingers.



I've noticed that and always wondered if this stereo-type is pushed by the left on purpose.


----------



## Pusser (12 Feb 2012)

When did this thread stop being about hockey?


----------



## uptheglens (12 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So the ideal is a tall, red headed Asian



Ooooh! Could I have one of those? Preferably with the sexual appetite of a pagan priestess?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Feb 2012)

uptheglens said:
			
		

> Ooooh! Could I have one of those? Preferably with the sexual appetite of a pagan priestess?



Male, right?


----------



## uptheglens (13 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Male, right?



Meh, any hole's a goal.


----------



## exabedtech (13 Feb 2012)

maybe i'll just stand back to the wall in the showers...


----------



## EngineerWannabe (13 Feb 2012)

This is the opposite of what I would have guessed. I am fairly right wing and most left wingers I debate with seem to lacking in the iq department. All they know how to do is talk about how much they hate the rich.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Feb 2012)

Right or Left, the "true measure of brilliance lies in how much someone agrees with you."  

As near as I can tell though, neither side of the political spectrum has cornered the market on dingbats.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Feb 2012)

*Attributed* to Abraham Lincoln:


> You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.



Modern day interpretation: You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can fool all the lefties all the time.


----------



## Jed (13 Feb 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> *Attributed* to Abraham Lincoln:
> 
> Modern day interpretation: You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can fool all the lefties all the time.



Good one, Rfmn62.  ;D


----------



## Teflon (13 Feb 2012)

If this "study" is even half true then the NDP are a bunch freaken Geniuses!!


----------



## Danjanou (13 Feb 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> maybe i'll just stand back to the wall in the showers...



He's a Highlander, just don't wear a sheepskin jacket and you should be ok.  8) 

Apparently this thread has now spiralled down to where it should be considering the original topic. :


----------



## Loachman (13 Feb 2012)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Apparently this thread has now spiralled down to where it should be considering the original topic. :



Or you could just move it into Radio Chatter where it can spiral away.

Oh - right...


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2012)

When I read the title, I thought this was about hockey players....


----------



## Strike (13 Feb 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> When I read the title, I thought this was about hockey players....



Guess the article is true then.   ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Feb 2012)

Idiocy is the realm of neither the Left nor the Right.  

As an example, both sides can be racist.  They just show it in different ways.

"Ron" won't hire "Ted" because "Ted" is black.  

"Larry" will hire "Ted" because "Ted" is black.

For both, the sole criterion of Ted's employment was his race.  "Ron" ignored the fact that "Ted" is the most qualified applicant for that position, while "Larry" ignored the fact that his "Ted" wasn't even in the top half of qualified applicants.

Both "Larry" and "Ron" will lie and say that they aren't racist.  "Ron" will say that "Ted" wasn't hired because of (insert lame excuse here).  "Larry" will actually advertise that he hired "Ted" and use it to illustrate that he's not racist, completely ignoring the fact that the sole criterion for "Ted's" employment was his race.


----------



## Redeye (13 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Idiocy is the realm of neither the Left nor the Right.
> 
> As an example, both sides can be racist.  They just show it in different ways.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:

Both forms of discrimination are equally insidious.


----------



## larry Strong (13 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> Both forms of discrimination are equally insidious.



Well for once we actually agree on something  And no I am not the Larry mentioned......


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Feb 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Well for once we actually agree on something  And no I am not the Larry mentioned......


"Ron" was right winged, and "Larry" was left winged.

The assumption that only the right wing is racist is....well...it's a faulty assumption.  And to equate racism with lack of intelligence is also faulty.  Many intelligent people are racist.  As Lady Ga Ga would say, they were born that way.  I suppose.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Feb 2012)

I can't believe intelligent people are still discussing this :facepalm:


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I can't believe intelligent people are still discussing this :facepalm:



Why thank you...but who says we're intelligent?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Why thank you...but who says we're intelligent?



Take the compliment, as a freebie, because it's not being proven by this thread.


----------



## Dou You (13 Feb 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Guess the article is true then.   ;D



Hey now...us right wingers skate with puck and shoot in net very better than you's left wingers do.

Plus, I'd say the goalies are the least intelligent anyways...honestly, who "wants" to get hit by pucks? (Obviously the less intelligent ones out there)  ;D


----------



## cupper (13 Feb 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> *Attributed* to Abraham Lincoln:
> 
> Modern day interpretation: You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can fool all the lefties all the time.



George W Bush had his own version: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... umm, can't be fooled again?


----------



## cupper (13 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Idiocy is the realm of neither the Left nor the Right.
> 
> As an example, both sides can be racist.  They just show it in different ways.
> 
> ...



Meanwhile, it turns out that "Ted" is an undocumented alien from Honduras, "Larry's" business is raided by ICE based on a tip by "Ron", "Larry" is fined, and has his business shut down, "Ted" now out of work turns to a life of crime, mugs "Ron" who dies from his injuries, and "Ted" goes underground and continues to enjoy life as an undocumented alien.


----------



## cupper (13 Feb 2012)

Dou You said:
			
		

> Hey now...us right wingers skate with puck and shoot in net very better than you's left wingers do.
> 
> Plus, I'd say the goalies are the least intelligent anyways...honestly, who "wants" to get hit by pucks? (Obviously the less intelligent ones out there)  ;D



Actually, it's the shot blocking D-men who's intelligence that you have to question. :nod:


----------

