Conservatives subject to lazy thinking?

[TheCouga]

Since John Derbyshire brought up the subject of intelligence...

Conservative Politics, 'Low-Effort' Thinking Linked In New Study

And now there's the new study linking conservative ideologies to "low-effort" thinking.

"People endorse conservative ideology more when they have to give a first or fast response," the study's lead author, University of Arkansas psychologist Dr. Scott Eidelman, said in a written statement released by the university.

Does the finding suggest that conservatives are lazy thinkers?

"Not quite," Dr. Eidelman told The Huffington Post in an email. "Our research shows that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort thinking."

For the study, a team of psychologists led by Dr. Eidelman asked people about their political viewpoints in a bar and in a laboratory setting.

Bar patrons were asked about social issues before blowing into a Breathalyzer. As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.

But it wasn't just the alcohol talking, according to the statement. When the researchers conducted similar interviews in the lab, they found that people who were asked to evaluate political ideas quickly or while distracted were more likely to express conservative viewpoints.

"Keeping people from thinking too much...or just asking them to deliberate or consider information in a cursory manner can impact people's political attitudes, and in a way that consistently promotes political conservatism," Dr. Eidelman said in the email.

This comes on the heels of another recent study that links low IQ scores in children to conservative viewpoints later in life:

Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes

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.

Given the previous caveats I expressed in the Derbyshire thread, we shouldn't give too much weight to what people score on intelligence tests. They paint a useful, yet incomplete picture of intelligence. But such test scores do happen to correlate reasonably well with conservative thought patterns.

I know a ton of smart people that are subject to conservative thinking -- but most of the time they are just too lazy to really investigate our society's problems. They want a simple answer that allows them to intellectually dismiss the concerns of the general public. But that's often not a great theory on which to run a country.

There are lots of core beliefs in the conservative thought doctrine that don't hold up to scrutiny, including the fact that lower taxes do not normally lead to increased government revenue, that less government regulation does not universally lead to more freedom, and that less taxes usually creates greater (not lesser) division of wealth. To say nothing about their century-old viewpoints on civil rights.

But I think a lot of conservatives are actually genuinely smart people -- they just choose not to expend much mental effort because they really don't care all that much about solving society's problems. They want people to solve their own problems themselves. Of course, that usually doesn't work...many people are incapable of solving their own problems totally on their own.

[TheCouga]

And yes, this post is partly tongue-in-cheek. Within any group, there is a wide variety of individual attributes and individuals differ more within each group than the groups differ themselves. So not all conservatives are lazy thinkers...

[Oblong]

Racist and lazy thinkers.... in the same day.... must be a record.

[TheCouga]

Racist and lazy thinkers.... in the same day.... must be a record.

Can't argue with the scientific evidence.

Well maybe you can, if you're a conservative. You can disclaim it as a liberal conspiracy theory without actually refuting the science.

[pfife]

Racist and lazy thinkers.... in the same day.... must be a record.

couple days apart

not that it matters when you're playing the victim card

[DaYooperASBDT]

Anyone trying to make an honest living tends to drink more.

[TheCouga]

Anyone trying to make an honest living tends to drink more.

That's as good of a response as any.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Liberals..

[TheCouga]

Sample size issues there...

[Mr.TaterSalad]

So if I went and found 1,500 maroons like that in Detroit and elsewhere would you except that sample size?

[TheCouga]

So if I went and found 1,500 maroons like that in Detroit and elsewhere would you except that sample size?

That's still an issue of not being a represenatative sample.

[Gehringer_2]

It is an interesting inversion. In the 70's it was conservatives that were out there doing empirical social science and economics (the monetarists for example) and arguing from evidence about the mistakes of those who tried to over-extend Keynes and those that thought you could break poverty with nothing more than cash payments (the great society idealists). Now we have come full circle. The conservatives argue social policy based on fantasy and ideology, and argue economics in complete opposition to demonstrated fact. Too bad I'm probably too old to be able to check back in 2050 and witness the next inevitable turn.

[pyrotigers]

Liberals..

Ah, but these are all economic issues

Clearly intelligent people are socially liberal and economically conservative, and I'm definitely not saying that for self aggrandizing reasons at all....

[hueytaxi]

It doesn't take a high IQ or a snoot full of booze to recognize a load of crap (so called scientific evidence).

[DaYooperASBDT]

William F. Buckley

[John_Brian_K]

How does a thread like this even exist?

How does this thread not get deleted immediately?

Sincerely, I am just curious. The thread is basically saying 'I am a liberal and smarter than you and conservatives are all pretty much morons!'

Is this not simply a shot at a group of people who think differently than the person who started the thread?

[Gehringer_2]

William F. Buckley

If William F Buckley were still speaking for conservatives, this thread would not exist. I used to read and watch Buckley a lot. I can't think of anyone who would be more appalled at the anti-intellectualism of much of today's right wing than William F.

[TheCouga]

How does a thread like this even exist?

How does this thread not get deleted immediately?

Sincerely, I am just curious. The thread is basically saying 'I am a liberal and smarter than you and conservatives are all pretty much morons!'

Is this not simply a shot at a group of people who think differently than the person who started the thread?

It's a legitimate news item because a new scientific study was released.

But seriously...you should notice the "wink" icon coupled with the thread title.

Also, it is most definitely appropriate in the wake of the John Derbyshire column basically saying the same thing about black people...where certain conservatives were somewhat defending Derbyshire.

[Oblong]

So are you calling yourself a bigot like Derbyshire?

[DaYooperASBDT]

If William F Buckley were still speaking for conservatives, this thread would not exist. I used to read and watch Buckley a lot. I can't think of anyone who would be more appalled at the anti-intellectualism of much of today's right wing than William F.

Well I suppose any moron could (mis) appropriate a great man's concepts - or somebody might dumb them down - or someone might resort to scapegoating.

But to be fair, I think Dr. King would be quite appalled as well. Let's face it, our schools just plain suck when it comes to teaching civics and history.

[ben9753]

It's a legitimate news item because a new scientific study was released.

But seriously...you should notice the "wink" icon coupled with the thread title.

Also, it is most definitely appropriate in the wake of the John Derbyshire column basically saying the same thing about black people...where certain conservatives were somewhat defending Derbyshire.

I'm sure the Germans had "scientific" evidence of the superiority of the Aryan race.

[VegasTiger]

I'm sure the Germans had "scientific" evidence of the superiority of the Aryan race.

Second time someone has put quotation marks around the word "scientific". The irony.

[rhino]

I don't know Couga. I think us free marketers are the laziest.

Anarchy doesn't take much thought.

[TheCouga]

So are you calling yourself a bigot like Derbyshire?

No, because I don't take myself as seriously as Derbyshire does.

[Gehringer_2]

Well I suppose any moron could (mis) appropriate a great man's concepts - or somebody might dumb them down - or someone might resort to scapegoating.

But to be fair, I think Dr. King would be quite appalled as well. Let's face it, our schools just plain suck when it comes to teaching civics and history.

I'm sure you are right. King would be the same angry old cuss that Cosby is on the issue.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

I don't know Couga. I think us free marketers are the laziest.

Anarchy doesn't take much thought.

Of course we are intellectually lazy. Didn't you know that Mao's IQ was higher than Mises.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

People with truly copious amounts of real knowledge read this...


Don't I sound ridiculous? Hmmm...

[TheCouga]

Who released the army of strawmen?

[Gehringer_2]

William F. Buckley

Yoop - Now I have this image of Buckley reducing Rush Limbaugh to a quivering mass on a Sunday afternoon Firing Line. It's not a pretty vision and I can't get it out of my head!

[DetroitCity313]

This is absurd. And it is the reason this country is going nowhere fast. I may not be a conservative but I will not say conservatives are lazy and stupid. You leave no room to learn, grow or compromise if you start off with the premise that the other side is just dumb. And this study doesn't prove anything. I don't put much weight into these "studies".

[Gehringer_2]

This is absurd. And it is the reason this country is going nowhere fast. I may not be a conservative but I will not say conservatives are lazy and stupid. You leave no room to learn, grow or compromise if you start off with the premise that the other side is just dumb. And this study doesn't prove anything. I don't put much weight into these "studies".

I wouldn't say conservatives are dumb, many of them have been brilliant at manuevering the system to get what they have long wanted. What is true is the degree to which the conservative movement has put some epically poorly informed people forward as standard bearers. Now there are plenty of pretty low wattage Democrats as well, check out any big city government, but they don't tend to get elevated to standard bearer status by the rest of the party the way Michele Bachman did for instance. And Bachman is a dim bulb by any objective standard.

[DetroitCity313]

I wouldn't say conservatives are dumb, many of them have been brilliant at manuevering the system to get what they have long wanted. What is true is the degree to which the conservative movement has put some epically poorly informed people forward as standard bearers. Now there are plenty of pretty low wattage Democrats as well, check out any big city government, but they don't tend to get elevated to standard bearer status by the rest of the party the way Michele Bachman did for instance. And Bachman is a dim bulb by any objective standard.

Bachmann was hardly a standard bearer. She ran and was quickly sent away by her party. I wouldn't classify Romney, Gingrich or Ron Paul as "poorly informed"...and these are the 3 guys left in the race. Sure, I would say George Bush was poorly informed...but then again I do not think Dick Cheney was.

This whole idea that "Republicans are stupid because poor people in trailers vote for them" or "Democrats are dumb because black welfare queens vote for them" needs to stop.

[Gehringer_2]

Bachmann was hardly a standard bearer. She ran and was quickly sent away by her party. .

Poll: Bachmann surges to primary lead - Washington Times

I applaud your generosity toward the current leadership of the GOP but I don't share it.

[Oblong]

Bachmann was hardly a standard bearer. She ran and was quickly sent away by her party. I wouldn't classify Romney, Gingrich or Ron Paul as "poorly informed"...and these are the 3 guys left in the race. Sure, I would say George Bush was poorly informed...but then again I do not think Dick Cheney was.

This whole idea that "Republicans are stupid because poor people in trailers vote for them" or "Democrats are dumb because black welfare queens vote for them" needs to stop.

Very nice post there. I mean that.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

Poll: Bachmann surges to primary lead - Washington Times

I applaud your generosity toward the current leadership of the GOP but I don't share it.

I fail to see how a July 2011 poll disputes what 313 said.

[Gehringer_2]

I fail to see how a July 2011 poll disputes what 313 said.

He said she was not a standard bearer. In the time since the 2008 election and the rise of Tea-party she certainly has been. She was in front of a mike outside the House Chamber every time a comment was sought, she was invited to speak at all the major GOP and tea-party events, and at one point was indeed the most favorably viewed pol among the potential presidential aspirants (as per the poll referenced).

I did say "A" standard, not the only one. The fact that she was *eventually* eclipsed does not vitiate the basic argument that for an extended period of time up until her fall from grace, she was a significant voice.

[DaYooperASBDT]

This is absurd. And it is the reason this country is going nowhere fast. I may not be a conservative but I will not say conservatives are lazy and stupid. You leave no room to learn, grow or compromise if you start off with the premise that the other side is just dumb. And this study doesn't prove anything. I don't put much weight into these "studies".

Word.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I think Bachmann is one smart cookie (tax lawyer moms tend to have something on the ball), but she stuck to stirring up tea party types, ala Pat Buchanan - and similarly failed. She is certainly a poor politician, spending too much time on social issues. I've decided that she is the ultra-conservative version of Jimmy Carter, albeit with far nicer legs!

[Gehringer_2]

I think Bachmann is one smart cookie

There is a certainly an animal intelligence that allows a Bachmann to tune into and reflect to an audience, but on an objective measure of her competence around the understanding or facts of the public issues she wanted to claim as her mantle, she was woefully lacking and pretty impervious to data.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I betcha you'd rank her above Sarah Palin