I don't think it says that at all. I don't see it as making sweeping generalizations, just increases in likelihood. There's a huge difference. Like this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071020081551AAu0Izm
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Prejudiced, Conservative People Probably Stupid, Says Science
- Thread starter LeftishBritInPA
- Start date
I don't think it says that at all. I don't see it as making sweeping generalizations, just increases in likelihood. There's a huge difference. Like this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071020081551AAu0Izm
Someone who owns sweat shops, using child labour, and denies it. That's one example. Scum of the earth, as far as I'm concerned.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
So ignorant people also tend to be stupid.
Stop the presses.
Stop the presses.
Did you read the actual research paper?
Yup. Did you? I saw lots of terms like 'more likely' . Did you?
I don't care about the fact that the "research" is couched in terms of predictability. I care about the methods and the statistics. This isn't a new thing in psychological research, and time was similar methods were used to demonstrate racial inferiority. They used data gathered from other studies first about a group of people in the UK tested for one measure (cognitive ability) as children and another two (racism and social conservatism) two decades later. They then used a path analysis to demonstrate directionality in the data sets. The first problem, then, is the assumption that the cognitive tests accurately describe the same individuals 20 years later. This is quite a questionable assumption, but it is a lot easier than actually conducting a study with participants. This way, you get to make a bunch of political claims without having to study anyone. Then there's the methods used to determine their variables. Social conservatism was equated with submission to authority and sex roles using only 13 questions for both in one data pool and 16 for both in the other. The questions, however, e.g., "give law breakers stiffer sentences" or "pre-school kids suffer when mum works full time" are poor. If you are going to ask explicit questions about charged topics, it's best to ask a lot so that you can test for internal validity. They didn't, so they couldn't. And I don't see how these questions are adequate tests of social conservatism.
Also, I'm having a hard time figuring out how they got from their statistical analysis to the resulting directed path and the conclusion. How do you control for socio-economic status and their other covariates by simply correlating them with cognitive capacity and predictors of the two variables you are interested in? And then to go from a directed graph which demonstrates statistically significant correlations between three other other variables (SES, parent SES, and education level) and the variables of interest (social conservatism and racial ideology) and somehow conclude that cognitive capacity is a predictor of anything?
I'll need to take a closer look at Kiesler's 2010 to understand more of the issue with the second aspect of their study.
Better and better. They data for their second study depended on Kiesler's 2010 study. They used Kite & Deaux's (1986) HAS test. Unfortunately, test-retest reliability was determined using Pearson's r. Although this is done fairly frequently in the social sciences, the problems with treating likert-scale variables as raw numbers were the reason for the creation of a whole new system of techniques within logic, statistics, computer science, probability, mathematics, etc (fuzzy set techniques based on the development of fuzzy logic by Zadeh). Even before that, however, there's a reason we have different correlation coefficients for ordinal data (and a likert scale is ordinal data). Pearson's r assumes a normal bivariate distribution of two continous variable. However, most discrete sets are appropriate as well (SAT scores, IQ tests, etc., all have sufficient variability and range to approximate continous data). Likert scale based data do not approximate continuous sets, and they frequently are frequently not normally distributed.
The authors then used an intelligence test which they claim is no longer "experimental." However, the correlation tests they point to in order to demonstrate this (the correlation of their test SAT scores and grades in various classes) were often fairly low. The most recent study investigating the validity of their test which they refer to showed a decent correlation with Math SAT scores but did not show a correlation with Verbal scores. But they used it anyway. Fine. There are always issues with measures. However, their entire subject pool consisted of college students. Getting GPA scores and SAT data would not have been difficult, and would have provided additional measurements of abstract reasoning. After all, these were the tests used to "demonstrate" the validity of the test they did use.
Also, although they obtained additional data about their subjects (race, income bracket, and gender) the only factored gender into their analysis. And once again, they used a correlation matrix of r scores when dealing with likert-data.
The study the OP refers to used these data to massage into a path analysis.
The authors then used an intelligence test which they claim is no longer "experimental." However, the correlation tests they point to in order to demonstrate this (the correlation of their test SAT scores and grades in various classes) were often fairly low. The most recent study investigating the validity of their test which they refer to showed a decent correlation with Math SAT scores but did not show a correlation with Verbal scores. But they used it anyway. Fine. There are always issues with measures. However, their entire subject pool consisted of college students. Getting GPA scores and SAT data would not have been difficult, and would have provided additional measurements of abstract reasoning. After all, these were the tests used to "demonstrate" the validity of the test they did use.
Also, although they obtained additional data about their subjects (race, income bracket, and gender) the only factored gender into their analysis. And once again, they used a correlation matrix of r scores when dealing with likert-data.
The study the OP refers to used these data to massage into a path analysis.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Not to jump aboard, but the OP reminded me of an article I read about something similar.
The first para, to hook ya: "The notion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is familiar to anyone who has spent time on a college campus. The College Democrats are said to be ugly, smug and intellectual; the College Republicans, pretty, belligerent and dumb. There's enough truth in both stereotypes that the vast majority of college students opt not to join either club."
Read more: Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? - TIME
The first para, to hook ya: "The notion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is familiar to anyone who has spent time on a college campus. The College Democrats are said to be ugly, smug and intellectual; the College Republicans, pretty, belligerent and dumb. There's enough truth in both stereotypes that the vast majority of college students opt not to join either club."
Read more: Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? - TIME
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
This seems to ignore that fact that most college students are ugly, smug, intellectual, petty, belligerent, and dumb.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Ha, true.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Another example of science skewing data to reach the desired result.
Another example of science skewing data to reach the desired result.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Said like a true conservative. :run:
You don't have to be conservative to object to bad science or mixing science and politics. I can't think of a definition of conservative that would apply to me, but I too see this as politics hiding behind a scientific facade, and I've stated in some detail why. If you disagree, then you can always state on what grounds.
The assertion, as I read it, is that the less intelligent are drawn to conservatism and then pick up conservative prejudices.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I didn't even read it because there is no way in Hell a real and credible scientific journal is going to say "Prejucided, Conservative People Probably Stupid." With such a title, it's not even worth my time.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Here is a far less biased source, with this article not putting such an emphasis on "conservative = low IQ." And even then, using the word "dumb" just shouldn't be used.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
It's not the actual studies or scientific journals publishing them that come up with the click-bait titles, though. Newspapers and magazines have always used provocative, eye catching headlines to attract readers to what might, or might not, be worthwhile articles.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I'm aware of that. But with such a title there is probably a 0% chance the article accurately reflects what the author(s) of the original study did write. A better title would have been more like "Those with lower IQs more likely to be prejudiced and adhere to Conservative ideology." It's kind of bland, it doesn't scream click bait, and it isn't insinuating that Conservatives are probably prejudiced and dumb. Really, there is no excuse for trying to pass off such a title as something a real, legit, and credible science source said. Science didn't say that, a total ignoramus did.
That may be so. I was acknowledging I could be misunderstanding the intention there, but I think just about everyone has some kind of conservative leanings, and it just matters what one considers valuable and worthy of protecting.
The post below sums up nicely what I think is happening there.
5.5 years ago when this was posted I noticed a lot of these kinds of articles, seeming to be doing the same thing. I was also responding to the general political attitude I was seeing.
I'm convinced this type of thing is one of the reasons we have Donald Trump as president of the US right now. A lot people got tired of being called names instead of, and as an excuse for not, listening to them or allowing the possibility of simple disagreement on issues. People got tired of the "deplorable" or we can feel justified in looking down on them as people attitude being promoted.